Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
Guest
that just shows you how robotic you really are. If you have a mutation, you have a chance to prevent cancer from coming into play. If you have a mutation, you have a 95% chance of developing cancer by the age of 70. yeah, we tell the docs and office how to perform a simple blood test to test for this mutation, which if found will change the medical management of the patient. Oncology reps are the worst because you are making money off of making people more sick. did you know that people live longer when they are not on chemotherapy? try reading "the Politics of Cancer" by a leading oncologist, Dr. Epstein, and then spin it somehow that the way we treat cancer is helping anyone. You don't make that much more money than I do, don't fantasize. You probably make more money, but not twice as much. Bonus potential here is greater than any pharma company can offer with top reps earning $120k in bonus alone. It might not compare to your inflated salary, so yeah, you have a smaller penis than I do so tell me how important you are by the size of your wallet. As to your "don't these treatments already exist" comment. They do, but if the doctor doesn't know about the increased risk, it will be too late for advanced screening. How will the doctor know to increase surveillance if they show no signs? also, you don't treat the patient, the doctor does. He already knows about your pathetic drug that kills people and wouldn't care if you were telling him or he was learning about it at a conference. You are worthless. but, at least you have a lot of money. ass
This all might be well and good if all breast cancer was genetic. However, very few are positive for BRCA and even less are positive for BART (the only 2 assays available to anyone looking to be tested because of the patent) now even being optimistic for Myriads sake lets say that 25% of all breast cancer is genetic that leaves the majority still looking for other answers other than double mastectomies (the current most practical option for those who are positive for the mutations since one can not alter their own geneome). Myriad even realizes the limitations of genetic testing and has removed genetic testing from its health care benefits (other than its own, because that would look even worse for them). So obviously the company is only in it to make a buck. Get off your moral high horse of saving lives. IF that was truely the case for this company they would be doing more to get more assays out there to detect even more of the various mutations that exist for the gene rather than just the two that bring in the most money. snps and full exonic deletions/duplications just scratch the surface and myriad is struggling with just those. If you want to truely save lives sell off clinical rights to others that can make a difference since myriad is either unwilling or unable to advance the research needed to find more ways of detecting mutations in these genes.