WSJ Gets It Wrong
Monday, December 15th, 2008 by Harry Lewis
People no generic typically receive follow-up visits with an oncologist for many years buy cheap diflucan online after their initial treatments for oral cancer. Doctors usually do colchicine sale not repeat external beam radiation therapy in the same area buy cialis once daily but may use brachytherapy or internal radiation to help manage cheap serevent the cancer. A person should attend all of their follow-up online online without a prescription appointments to increase the chances of early detection should the buy generic cipro online cancer return. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), many buy cheap cialis online doctors will use the term ‘remission' rather than cure, as buy estrace vaginal cream they can never be certain cancer will not return. However, cheap retin-a the ACS points out that treatments and outcomes are constantly find cheap prescription improving, so people may have a better outlook than these buy aldactone statistics suggest. Doctors may offer chemotherapy alongside other treatment options, flagyl prescription such as radiation, particularly for people with advanced cancer that buy pills has spread to distant parts of the body. People should also.
A Wall Street Journal story about a proposed agreement between Google and Internet Service Providers suggests that Google is pulling a double-cross, given its prior commitment to Net Neutrality. Unfortunately the details of the proposal haven’t been made public. But the consensus of the knowledgeable is that the WSJ misunderstands what is going on and that Net Neutrality is not threatened by Google’s proposal. A greater worry is perhaps about the implications of Google’s increasingly monopoly power over bits, but that wouldn’t mean that its packets got delivered faster than those of some minor player.) Thanks to Steve Schultze for pointing me to this collection of comments.