Larry Page's Vocal Cords Are Partially Paralyzed 189
theodp writes "Last summer, unspecified voice problems caused Google CEO Larry Page to miss Google's Annual Shareholder Meeting, the I/O conference, and a quarterly earnings call. Now, Page has come forward and revealed that he suffers from partial paralysis of each of his vocal chords, an 'extremely rare' condition. Not unlike what Sergey Brin and his wife are doing with Parkinson's research, Page and his wife will be funding and overseeing 'a significant research program' led by Dr. Steven Zeitels of Harvard Medical School."
Only when (Score:5, Insightful)
all the rich people get all the world diseases, will the funding start..
Re:Only when (Score:5, Insightful)
all the rich people get all the world diseases, will the funding start..
Not everything that improves health and quality of life for many, needs to be done for purely altruistic motivation. Better to have research funded for selfish reasons - which then benefits others as well - than to not have the research done at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing even close to technical... which cant contain morality, because it is technical.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect to see more CEOs will be developing this condition . . . right around the time to report earnings and analyst conference calls.
Re: (Score:2)
How much did you care about this disease, 12 hours ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only when (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Only when (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically the Gates foundation is working on eradicating polio at the moment, he just put $50 million in the pot and the taliban have finally given health workers paperwork to let them pursue their goal. He said on NPR the other day that his next stop after polio would be Malaria. You can say what you want about his Microsoft days, but given what he's doing now he's a great guy in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
His money does great things.
Re:Only when (Score:4, Insightful)
I loath a lot of what he's done, but I don't think divorcing "Bill Gate's money" from "Bill Gates" has any merit. I think this is response is just you trying to handle your cognitive dissonance [wikipedia.org].
The man was a ruthless copycat and a predator who set the computer world back at least a decade. For that he deserves (and, to a certain degree, receives) scorn.
He is also a man who decided that his wealth should go to help make the world a better place for people whose trouble do not, usually, receive funds. For that the man deserves (and, to a certain degree, receives) praise.
Learn to live with these two facts, contradicting though they may seem.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I steal a dollar, and give it away, I should go to jail.
But if I steal billions, and then proceed to give that away, I should be held in awe?
The only reason he started doing this was because his wife convinced him that he needed to leave a legacy behind. That once he started doing it, he embraced it is not a problem, but his "doing good" is still laced with problems. For example, the Gates Foundation is now trying to monopolize donations. They want to channel all donations through them, and take a
Re:Only when (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is important (though, I would be the first to agree, not common) to read comments in the context in which they are given.
If you steal a billion dollars, and then proceed to do good things with them, then you should be applauded for the good you did, while going to jail for the billion you stole.
Shahcar
Re: (Score:3)
Let's also be fair - the Bill Gates of the 80s and 90s is not the Bill Gates of today. People can and do change - and honestly, I would put money down that he always thought he was doing what was right.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to channel all donations through them, and take a small % of the donations. And manage the donors. For some reason, all the major foundations hate that idea, especially the part where they give up the donors to the Gates Foundation. Gee, I wonder where that behavior came from.
Monopolizing philanthropy next?
Re: (Score:2)
If you steal billions and proceed to give that away, you should go to jail.
If you earn billions through a successful business and then proceed to give that away, then yes, you should be held in awe.
Out of interest, what percentage of your total lifetime earnings have you committed to giving to charity?
Re: (Score:2)
If you steal billions and proceed to give that away, you should go to jail.
If you earn billions through a successful business and then proceed to give that away, then yes, you should be held in awe.
Out of interest, what percentage of your total lifetime earnings have you committed to giving to charity?
The relevant question would be what be what percentage beyond that required for a comfortable existence have you committed to give to charity. The saints give over 100%. They live in poverty so that others may live better. Bill Gates is able to give a large percentage of his total income to charity because his has far far more than he needs. What remains after his charitable donations is still much more than most of us here can hope to earn.
Re: (Score:2)
And even if I don't give anything to charity means that I cannot criticize him for being an asshole and for stealing billions, and trying to use that to clean up his reputation?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not convinced that Microsoft "set the world back at least a decade."
If anything, Microsoft's dominance in the personal computer market actually was a good thing in the beginning. Microsoft achieved its dominate position by delivering what people wanted during a time when the multitude of IBM PC clone manufacturers were pushing their machines out the door and needed an OS to install on them. The market flooded with cheap clones and the technical support for most of these machines were non-existant. Mic
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, Microsoft's dominance in the personal computer market actually was a good thing in the beginning.
Which is precisely why I didn't say "two decades".
I'll also add that I believe that the consolidation would have happened on its own, and might have consolidated on a better platform. The smartphones industry sure seem to go this route without a monopolistic overlord to guide it.
Everything else you describe happened around 1995. This is 2013.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence suggests that the market did consolidate. You just didn't like the results.
What? I guess I'm suppose to ignore the 800 lb gorillas named Apple and Google.
Sorry the MS-DOS thing happened in the 80's and surviv
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence suggests that the market did consolidate. You just didn't like the results.
I was under the impression that the consolidation was the good thing you attributed to MS. If that was, indeed, your point, claiming that it would happen without MS means they did not contribute to that end as much as you gave them credit, hence my point. If that was not your point, then I didn't get what was.
What? I guess I'm suppose to ignore the 800 lb gorillas named Apple and Google.
I refer you to what "Monopoly [wikipedia.org]" means (hint - mono is Greek for "single"). I am fizzy with anticipation to see your explanation of how two and competing entities might be considered a monopoly.
Sorry the MS-DOS thing happened in the 80's and survived the first watershed event where the small home computers couldn't compete with the deluge of 8086 machines. I don't know why you feel that you need to remind me that it's 2013, you appear to be the one with the short-term selective memory.
Juvenile
Re: (Score:2)
Your assertion is that Microsoft somehow set back computing by a decade. I've yet seen any evidence proving this assertion. My point is that Microsoft hastened the consolidation of the personal compute
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh, what? Apple IIs have slots in them, with IIRC, the manuals that come with them giving the pinouts of the slots and how to build new cards for them.
(....and the same comment probably applies to all of the other pre-IBM PC 8 bit computers).
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that I may have made a too general of a statement. Apple II did have expansion slots and there were plenty of third-party accessories for that platform. Coincidently, Apple DOS made use of a licensed version of Microsoft BASIC and most of the functionality was provided by it.
The x86 clones and CP/M machines were unique in that the manufacture wasn't creating a turnkey system completely in-house. Tandy, Commodore, Atari, and Apple made the OS for their systems while the clones depended on a third-pa
Re: (Score:2)
AppleSoft BASIC is MS. Integer isn't.
What do you mean "most of the functionality was provided by it"? DOS obviously refers to the *disk* interaction, and BASIC has none of that.
There may be other parts I don't know about.. (L
Re: (Score:2)
The BASIC interpreter provided by MS could be dumped out of the Apple entirely as long as you loaded something such as integer basic to provide a command prompt. More advanced users could use the machine language monitor. MS BASIC provided BASIC, the rest was Apple's doing.
MS had nothing to do with the design of the PC or the follow-on XT, AT, and various AT386 machines. IBM atsrted it, and tyhen went into the weeds w/ the PS/2 while various consortiums of clone makers took over on the PC side. The expansio
Re: (Score:2)
Really, no. DOS wasn't that big of deal in itself. If not for the big leg up from IBM, it is quite likely that something better would have come along. Windows didn't even get usable until 3.1 and wasn't actually any good until NT/95. Until tghen, if you wanted real multitasking, you needed Desqview.NT and '96 did OK at tasking but if you wanted to use that passing fad called the Internet, you needed Trumpet winsock and a browser.
Even back in the '80s, Xenix blew DOS away and even included a DOS box that pe
Re: (Score:2)
Another thing to keep in mind, he sees the big picture with his charity work. Most rich donors would have looked at polio and said there's only a few thousand lives to save here, lets spend the money somewhere else where the impact will be bigger. But he looks at it and says we have the chance to wipe the disease off the planet and remove the threat forever. Not to say he's the first person to see things that way by any means. I just mean that most people in his position wouldn't think in those terms.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't confuse your liking Gates and liking his money. His money does great things.
You mean his money escaped from his bank account and started a charitable foundation all in its own? His money must be a lot better than mine. My money frequently escapes never to be seen again.
Re: (Score:3)
Does this come with any of those rumored patent agreements?
I would hate to see people who avoided polio because of Mr. Gates generosity die of something else that could have been treated but patent agreements prevented them from getting affordable treatment. Buying patents on some drugs and making them free to produce would likely save a great many lives. It would also prevent the situation where a charity kills off jobs the locals need by killing the market for that good.
Re: (Score:2)
If he gets a cure for those things (he's got the money to get it done). Then I'm happy that he fucked off a load of geeks for 30+ years with some software. Remember with 99.9% of mosquito malaria gone we get 0.01% for aids zombies.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it is no longer charity and all the tax repercussions that go with that change. If there is quid pro quo then it is not charity.
Re: (Score:2)
"To maintain its status as a charitable foundation, it must donate at least 5% of its assets each year.[17] Thus the donations from the foundation each year would amount to over US$1.5 billion at a minimum."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation [wikipedia.org]
[17] http://www.savewealth.com/planning/estate/foundations/ [savewealth.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but when those 5% come with strings attached designed to make money for pharma companies they invest in, that is not really charity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He does this because malaria was killing his cheap OIL RIG labor in Africa.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Gates is looking into it and said if there was a cure he would buy it for everyone.
The cure for malaria is called DDT. He can start right now. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
(1) DDT has lots of real, and significant, problems of it's own.
(2) Mosquitoes are developing significant degrees of resistance to DDT.
and (3) whatever you substitute for DDT is almost certain to eventually suffer from problem 2, if it's used as a single solution to the problem ; suffering from problem (1) is not so hard to avoid.
Actually, writing that, I realised there's another problem with your analysis of the problem. with at least two
And what do we learn from this ? (Score:5, Interesting)
No matter the number of digits in your bank account, in the end you're still human... A very complex and wonderful piece of engineering, way above the complexity that we understand. Kudos for funding research, and all the best for this man...
Re:And what do we learn from this ? (Score:5, Funny)
...A very complex and wonderful piece of engineering, way above the complexity that we understand...
You're talking about perl here, right?
Re: (Score:2)
And what do we learn from this ?
No matter the number of digits in your bank account, in the end you're still human...
You mean to tell us you never expected this until today's epiphany?
And all the best wishes to Larry from me too.
Re: (Score:2)
"A very complex and wonderful piece of engineering"
On the contrary. We suffer from severe race conditions in the brain, we have obsolete and potentially dangerous "features" (i.e. the appendix). Replacement parts are hard to come by and we are very, very difficult to service. A simple service procedure can lead to catastrophic system failure. We're also got extremely poor interoperability with each other, leading to very large knowledge loss in transmission between systems and often disastrous and destructi
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how many digits King Louis XIV had in his bank account, he was still limited by the speed of horses for transportation and communication.
"Immortality" will probably happen within this century or millennium.
But then, we're ultimately limited [case.edu] by available matter/energy in the universe.
Re:And what do we learn from this ? (Score:4, Informative)
in the end you're still human... A very complex and wonderful piece of engineering, way above the complexity that we understand.
Look up human. It means something that is exhibits some of the characteristics of a human, any stricter definition excludes folks with disabilities, which are actually human. That lowers the bars for machine intelligence to become human... I digress.
Humans are pretty complex, but it's not above the ability for us to understand the complexity. A single human can specialize on familiarity with a small part of the human structure, there are enough such humans to divide humans into small enough pieces that their complexity can be fully knowable. We do know something of humans, we learn more every day, and what we have discovered doesn't point to them being engineered.
If you were an engineer, would you supply blood to an eye's retina's cones from the back side, to allow the detection cones to be unobstructed, and avoid needing to route the blood through a hole in the visual field? It would seem a cephalopod is more likely to be engineered than a human, their retinas aren't flippin' upside down, so they don't have blindspots in their retinas like humans do!
If you were an engineer, would you use larger longer vertebrae in one's vertical spine structure or a bunch of smaller ones? The advantage of the smaller bones is that they can swivel more, yet humans can turn only around 90 degrees due to the muscle and tendon configuration; The effect is just a series of small weak links in the spine's chain -- why are those lumbar vertebrae so damn small that they don't hold up over the intended lifetime of use and thus cause back problems? It would seem a giraffe is more likely to have been engineered than a human.
The list of horribly inept design flaws in a human is staggering. Nerves, under the feet?! Hair that gets so oily you must wash it regularly? Embryonic yolk sacks that waste energy developing then disappear, unused? No. There is no evidence for an intelligent designer; I just can't believe that ANYONE would be this daft, especially when they supposedly created BETTER designs in other species first -- I mean, unless.... Unless Humans were meant to be the butt of some cruel genetic joke?!
It would seem that if humans were engineered, it was a job undertaken by a malicious spite filled asshole, or an utterly unintelligent designer. This design looks like it was done haphazardly, perhaps by pure random chance, just slapping together features and picking the first model that doesn't break and meets the basic needs.
Humans are not finely crafted organic machines, they're a hodge podge of tacked together features shipped to mother nature with apologies and promises of a patch for the bugs in the next version! It's foolish to think humans are a piece of engineering wonder. Oh, humans are complex, one marvels at the scale of things -- but the wonder is not at the beauty in engineering elegance, it's that they even function at all given the design flaws!
Re: (Score:2)
You do know the problems with most of the human body is not the design of the body itself, but the inability of the humans to use it properly. USian focus on 'individuality' compounds the stupidity drastically. Compare group gymnastics by the USA to any asian country.
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong with nerves under the feet?
Also, you *must* wash your hair? Yes, of course I wash it too, but most likely wetting it would do most of the same work. We're just being brain (and head) washed by the shampoo companies.
Re: (Score:2)
you're still human... A very complex and wonderful piece of engineering...
Ummm... (maybe a particular case of Poe's law...) anthropomorphising [wikipedia.org] or "intelligent creation"-ist?
As far as I can tell at most software companies, random experimentation and tweaking does pass for engineering...
Re: (Score:2)
What sort of work are they being taken away from to deal with his insignificant little problem, I wonder.
In determining the eitology and perhaps a therapy for this condition, what other medical conditions will be subsequently solved by the newly gained knowledge?
None of us knows. It could be zero, it could be dozens. It could have no bearing, it could cure heart disease.
If only the Pages and Huntsmans of the world were the common model of spending by the wealthy, the world would be better off.
Re: (Score:2)
What sort of work are they being taken away from to deal with his insignificant little problem, I wonder.
In determining the eitology and perhaps a therapy for this condition, what other medical conditions will be subsequently solved by the newly gained knowledge?
None of us knows. It could be zero, it could be dozens. It could have no bearing, it could cure heart disease.
If only the Pages and Huntsmans of the world were the common model of spending by the wealthy, the world would be better off.
It's offensive.
I'm tellin ya... (Score:5, Funny)
We go out and get those top 10 richest people on the planet... You know the ones that own 60% of the world and all the stuff in it...
Infect them with aids.. Give them all cancer. Heck a whole bunch of diseases.. Toss in the flu and common cold.
We'll have cures for all of it by the end of the year.
It's time we start exploiting a valuable resource. Rich people.
We're not currently using them for anything but placeholders...
Re:I'm tellin ya... (Score:5, Insightful)
No we won't. You obviously have no concept of the amount of money and time it takes to develop "cures" for most diseases. The personal wealth of these people is close to the order of magnitude of money that can be spent researching one of these diseases over the course of a single year and that doesn't even factor in the number of years (man hours and simply waiting for enough accurate data to be collected) it takes in the end to find a "cure," if there is one. [I wrote it as "cure" because I think the word is frequently used to infer a quick-acting, life term treatment when in many cases that is not and may never be possible]
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but who cares? We are interested in the result here. One dies? Infect the next in line.
Re:I'm tellin ya... (Score:5, Insightful)
No we won't. You obviously have no concept of the amount of money and time it takes to develop "cures" for most diseases. The personal wealth of these people is close to the order of magnitude of money that can be spent researching one of these diseases over the course of a single year and that doesn't even factor in the number of years (man hours and simply waiting for enough accurate data to be collected) it takes in the end to find a "cure," if there is one. [I wrote it as "cure" because I think the word is frequently used to infer a quick-acting, life term treatment when in many cases that is not and may never be possible]
Most medical research nowadays is done by drug companies. They are not interested in "cures" they are interested in finding a drug to manage a particular condition, that way they get to make tons of money from all the repeat prescriptions of their creation. If they came up with a cure for that condition they only get the money from a single prescription.
If they created a single pill that would cure and vaccinate you against all the worlds diseases they would all go bankrupt within a decade, even if they could sell the pill for $1 million.
So who knows what is possible when the corporations who fund (and hence choose the direction of) most medical research are not interested in looking? Instead they come up with crap like Viagra as that is where the money is.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW Viagra was an accident. It was originally developed as a treatment for hypertension.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you know how actual research works. There are many researchers working independently and even with drug companies to develop cures. A magic bullet that can cure a multitude of disease would make the people/company rich regardless of how much it actually costs.
Unbelievable you actually got modded to +5...
Re: (Score:2)
So who knows what is possible when the corporations who fund (and hence choose the direction of) most medical research are not interested in looking?
I do. They'll just buy up the research when it's completed and bury it.
Oil companies have been doing that for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
You may have to tighten the tinfoil hat to find the "evidence", though.
Re: (Score:2)
A treatment that looks like it will manage a condition and make a large profit will get the hundreds of millions spent on it to get it through the regulatory process.
Something that looks like one-shot cure that will only make a small (or no) profit simply won't be invested in.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, Steve Jobs died of cancer; a cancer that might very well have been treatable, had he not been absolutely mental and gone for "natural" cure.
Not only do you need funding, you also need someone who believes in science (like Bill Gates, whom by the way does a heck of a lot for research).
Re:I'm tellin ya... (Score:5, Insightful)
"a cancer that might very well have been treatable, had he not been absolutely mental and gone for "natural" cure."
Yeah, its ironic isn't it that the man who ran such a high tech company reliant on cutting edge science would head off down the hippy bullshit road to cure himself of cancer instead of taking advantage of 50 years of medical research. It just shows that having a high IQ doesn't necessarily prevent someone from being a complete imbecile.
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs was kind of always into the hippy shit. 60s lsd head and all that. He did realise eventually that it was time to hand it over to the pros. Unfortunately by that stage it was too late.
Re:I'm tellin ya... (Score:4, Informative)
He had pancreatic cancer. Its generally one of those cancers where your fucked no matter how you try and attack it. He certainly didnt help his case with the daft hippy crap, but its unlikely a full science approach would have saved him.
Pancreatic cancer is a death sentence generally.
Re:I'm tellin ya... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs had a neuroendocrine cancer, which arises from the islet cells, is generally detected earlier because it causes a variety of symptoms (too much insulin which leads to hypoglycemia, etc), and has a varying but generally fairly good prognosis. In fact in some cases, surgeons can just "
Re:I'm tellin ya... (Score:5, Interesting)
Erm, Steve Jobs died of cancer; a cancer that might very well have been treatable, had he not been absolutely mental and gone for "natural" cure.
Not only do you need funding, you also need someone who believes in science (like Bill Gates, whom by the way does a heck of a lot for research).
One problem with very successful people -- they equate success in one field with success and expertise in all fields. Its a common problem, even among things like Nobel winners. They assume success (or luck) in their field makes them somehow an expert in anything they take an interest in.
IMO, that's always been one of Gates' strong points -- he knew what he knew and knew what he didn't know, and always surrounded himself with people who could compliment his expertise. Jobs always seemed the exact opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, Steve Jobs died of cancer; a cancer that might very well have been treatable, had he not been absolutely mental and gone for "natural" cure.
Not only do you need funding, you also need someone who believes in science (like Bill Gates, whom by the way does a heck of a lot for research).
It is worth remembering that the only treatments for Pancreatic Cancer are: Surgery, Radiation Therapy or Chemotherapy. Ok, he probably should have gone down the surgery route sooner than he did (he waited nine months) but the other two options both suck.
Many people choose to die of cancer rather that go through the shit of Chemo or Radiation Therapy as they both utterly ruin your quality of life for the time you have left for a very low probability of success anyway. By choosing to avoid these two treatmen
Re:I'm tellin ya... (Score:4, Insightful)
The one with the 6% survival rate, vs the 0% one the alternative offers.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the survival rate for this thing called life anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Survival" means won't die from it.
Are you sure this 6% will live for ever?
Re: (Score:2)
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzalivetoday.htm/ [about.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And this 5% to 10% will not die from this thing called life...?
Re: (Score:2)
Prostate cancer (Score:2, Informative)
Brin, who began donating to Parkinson’s research in 2005, accelerated that giving after he learned in 2008 he has a flawed gene that presents him with a 50 percent chance of getting the disease by age 70.
But, regardless of genetic background, there's a higher probability of developing prostate cancer by the age of 70. From Wikipedia:
Autopsy studies of Chinese, German, Israeli, Jamaican, Swedish, and Ugandan men who died of other causes have found prostate cancer in thirty percent of men in their 50s, and in eighty percent of men in their 70s.
Also,
People with prostate cancer generally encounter significant disparities in awareness, funding, media coverage, and research—and therefore, inferior treatment and poorer outcomes—compared to other cancers of equal prevalence. In 2001, The Guardian noted that Britain had 3,000 nurses specializing in breast cancer, compared to only one for prostate cancer. It also discovered that the waiting time between referral and diagnosis was two weeks for breast cancer but three months for prostate cancer. [it goes on...]
Given these disparities, and since prostate cancer is far more prevalent than any of these genetic diseases, IMHO prostate cancer research would be a far better target for any donations.
Re:Prostate cancer (Score:5, Interesting)
Prostate cancer is very common among older men, but it's more often an annoyance than a killer, since people usually die of other causes before the cancer can kill them.
To quote the doctor treating one of my relatives, it's a cancer you die with, not of.
The relative 5-year survival rate is nearly 100%. The relative 10-year survival rate is 98%. The 15-year relative survival rate is 93%.
(US numbers) [cancer.org]
That's why prostate cancer has low priority, compared to e.g. breast cancer, which has a relative 1-year survival rate of 96%, and 85% for 5 years (UK numbers [cancerresearchuk.org]).
gene tests not very reliable yet (Score:2)
Some advice. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't yell as much at your employees, throw a chair once in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't yell as much at your employees, throw a chair once in a while.
I thought people were not listening.
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is a joke, but I don't think Larry Page has ever yelled at a person in his life. It's just not in his character.
+1
It's certainly not in his management style.
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is a joke, but I don't think Larry Page has ever yelled at a person in his life.
Maybe at his mom, when he was little.
Yup... (Score:5, Interesting)
I had partial vocal cord paralysis for almost a year...it was miserable. It hurt to talk. I went to specialists, got scoped multiple times, and they said if it didn't clear up after a month or so, it was likely permanent. They put me on all kids of drugs, and then prepared speech therapy for me. I read up about it, but it's just crazy to understand first-hand how how of a gift it is to have the ability to speak. To simply communicate. I had to write down everything I wanted to say to people - and half my job was to speak and teach.
That year was _not_ fun.
There is a good ending: near the end of that year, I went to a dev camp for a week, but, I was diagnosed with a sinus infection right before I left. They gave me the regular jar of antibiotics. I got a chance to rest that week, and take my meds.
Then I came home...the next day I went to the grocery store and gave them my order. The deli lady said "Oh...you've got your voice back...when did that happen?". I went home and said "Honey, I'm home". My wife was cried tears of joy, jumped up and gave me one of the biggest hugs of my life. I could talk again.
It sounds like his case is more severe in nature, but here's hoping...you never know.
-jm
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know which antibiotic, you never know it might have a specific application to this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak No Evil? (Score:4, Funny)
Just couldn't resist....
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall seeing "shit no evil" in the list.
yuck (Score:2)
This sucks for him. I had a colleague go through this last year. Luckily in her case it was temporary, stemming from a bad cold. Still, she couldn't speak above a whisper for 3 months.
Rabies vaccine (Score:2)
I wonder whether Larry got vaccinated for rabies a month or two before the laryngeal paralysis became apparent.
There's growing evidence that indiscriminate annual rabies vaccinations commonly performed on dogs & cats might be the root cause of the growing number of cases of laryngeal paralysis seen among pets in the US.
At the macro level, the evidence is pretty compelling:
* Laryngeal paralysis was practically unheard of in cats, and rare in dogs, until about 10 years ago... right around the time vaccin
Is it contagious? (Score:2)
Maybe he could meet my wife.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he could meet my wife.
Or Gilbert Gottfried.
Serious, but not fatal. (Score:2)
Long time NPR host Diane Rehm [thedianerehmshow.org] has suffered from the same condition. It kept her off the air for some months back in the '90s, but not permanently. The solution then, apparently, was an injection of something akin to botox.
Hopefully getting enough sunlight and vegetables? (Score:2)
Suggested last year: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/openvirgle/QukA-eEPXVg/_7XkmJ1iHA8J [google.com]
I just posted this comment to that page:
----
For some health advice on how to reduce the risk of further illnesses making this worse, please search for my post to the OpenVirgle Google group from 2012-06-23 entitled "Larry Page & Sergey Brin hopefully getting enough sunlight and vegetables?"
An excerpt: "I can wonder if, like so many indoor-types people in the technology field, those two hard working guys are bot
Steve Jobs 2.0? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Humans aren't evolved for philanthropy. Our brains care most about our own situation. When we hear "Millions of people suffer from this condition", we shrug and move on. It's just vocal cords, or it's just a stroke, or it's just depression. Once a particular condition affects us personally, we become fully aware of just how bad it really is. That's when we realize how much we take our voices for granted, or how difficult our life is without even a small part of our cognition, or how crushing sadness can aff
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After all, it worked for Chris Stevens on Northern Exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, a couple of AC did mention Scott Adams before you (1 [slashdot.org], 2 [slashdot.org]. One even linked to Scott Adams' take on Larry Page's problem [dilbert.com].