Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Larry Page's Vocal Cords Are Partially Paralyzed

Posted by Soulskill on from the strong-silent-type dept.

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."

29 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Only when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    all the rich people get all the world diseases, will the funding start..

    1. Re:Only when by ciderbrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bill Gates is looking into it and said if there was a cure he would buy it for everyone. So as much as people hate windows ... ... ... is the amount of cure he has to make up for.. :)

    2. Re:Only when by werewolf1031 · · 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.

    3. Re:Only when by Charliemopps · · 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.

    4. Re:Only when by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      I suspect to see more CEOs will be developing this condition . . . right around the time to report earnings and analyst conference calls.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Only when by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re:Only when by Sun · · Score: 3, 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.

      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

    7. Re:Only when by Sun · · Score: 4, 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

    8. Re:Only when by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    9. Re:Only when by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  2. And what do we learn from this ? by Foske · · 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...

    1. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    2. Re:And what do we learn from this ? by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, 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!

  3. I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

    1. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anonymous Coward · · 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]

    2. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Viol8 · · Score: 4, 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.

    3. Re:I'm tellin ya... by sg_oneill · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    4. Re:I'm tellin ya... by tgd · · Score: 4, 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.

    5. Re:I'm tellin ya... by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The one with the 6% survival rate, vs the 0% one the alternative offers.

    6. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    7. Re:I'm tellin ya... by pseudofrog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Steve Jobs had a rare form of pancreatic cancer that can actually be cured in some cases, according to this interview and other sources. His doctors recommended a radical surgery to prevent it from spreading, but he delayed surgery for nine months because of his belief in non-scientific alternatives. It is unclear if this delay made a difference, but it's possible that he could have been full-blown cured had he opted for surgery right away.

    8. Re:I'm tellin ya... by Anastomosis · · Score: 2

      The "death sentence" pancreatic cancer you are thinking of is pancreatic adenocarcinoma, which arises from the ducts, usually isn't detected until it has metastasized, and yes, has an average life span measured in months.
      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 "shell" the thing out of the pancreas and done. Other options can include an interventional radiologist embolizing the artery that supplies the tumor, killing it.
      I don't know his level of metastasis at detection, but a full science approach here would almost certainly have saved him.

  4. Prostate cancer by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Prostate cancer by Kiwikwi · · 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)

      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).

  5. Some advice. by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't yell as much at your employees, throw a chair once in a while.

  6. Re:Nothing wrong with it, but... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

    So what? No one is asking you to kiss his backside because of his good deeds. If his cash helps find a cure for his disease, good for him, and we'll benefit as well. Better than spending it on another butt-ugly yacht.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  7. Yup... by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    1. Re:Yup... by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 2

      Your story is remarkable in similarity to my own. One of my vocal chords was paralyzed as a result of Polyarteritis Nodosa, an autoimmune disease that affects the vascular system. A few months after the paralysis I got bronchitis. My vocal chord recovered two days after I started taking antibiotics. I'd have to dig through my records to see if they bumped up my prednisone before or after the recovery. Maybe the medicine caused the recovery, or maybe the bronchitis somehow triggered my body to repair the cells. I don't know but I'm grateful to have my voice back. At the time my left arm was fully paralyzed and my right arm was at risk (and it hurt to use it). I pretty much couldn't type, write or speak. I'm not sure that Mr. Page's condition is worse than yours or mine. Most people suffer full paralysis of one chord or the other. He evidently has partial paralysis of both. Perhaps his was caused by an injury.

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
  8. Speak No Evil? by Bob_Who · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just couldn't resist....