At the risk of upsetting Vampire by asking the opinion of someone who might actually understand these things better than me, what do you reckon tothis sort of stuff
Sorry for the delay.
It's bollocks stitched to a good point, as is probably obvious. Are they alleging she timed her op to manipulate shares at the same time as saying the publication had a 3 week lead time? O-Kkkk.... Seems like there's some anti-Obamacare action going on there too. As well as some "cure cancer without drugs" stories elsewhere... They're obviously clueless cunts and anything on that site needs more salt than is buried under Cheshire.
Her decision is a personal one and makes great sense, and she's brave to do the right thing and speak out, even if it helps Myriad, as it's more important to make women who are scared and ignoring their risks to appreciate they have options better than wait & die. The odds are very stark in these cases, as you'll see better explained elsewhere.
The point about Myriad, which is a good one, is that their patent is bullshit and always was, as various courts have decided. It's been an area of great controversy and profit, patenting genetic tests, and Myriad have been utter cunts throughout (it's worth reading up on; Ben G. makes a typically great post on it here
When I was starting out, I worked near some folks who tested for Breast & ovarian cancer via PCR for Brca1 and Brca2 for the NHS Genetics Service. There was great confusion about whether they were breaking the law or not and in the end there was enough caution to pay the license fees, otherwise women with a family history might not get tested. This was at the same time as Perkin Elmer were pushing their patent and insisting that all PCR be license-paid (PCR is a technique for amplifying DNA which underlies or is used in almost all the great advances in all areas of molecular biology made since the late 70s). We never paid for that as we felt they richly deserved to fuck off - essentially, they can patent how they make the enzyme to sell, but they can't stop someone else making it slightly differently. And competitors offered the same key product (Taq polymerase) without a license so we bought from them instead.
My firm belief is (and I think UK patent law is pretty good on it unlike the US) that you cannot patent life in it's existing forms; genes, mutant variants, whatever. All existed before you put your gloves on. But how to make something (e.g. a recombinant form of oestrogen for pills instead of purifying the equine version from piss) should be patentable. It's just in that example you don't "own" oestrogen and so another company can order primers, clone the gene and make it in their process... and I can do the same in the lab as a non-profit, and if company X don't like it they can suck my balls.
Does that cover it chubbs?
You know, I'm sick of following my dreams, man. I'm just going to ask where they're going and hook up with 'em later.