Bits Blog: Larry Page Says Vocal Cord Paralysis Causes His Voice Problems

Emmanuel Dunand/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Both of Larry Page’s vocal cords were paralyzed after virus infections.

5:28 p.m. | Updated to clarify that one of Mr. Page’s vocal cords has limited movement but is not paralyzed.

Larry Page, Google’s chief executive, said Tuesday that he has a rare and chronic health problem that forces him to speak hoarsely and constricts his breathing.

The announcement is the first time that Mr. Page has explained his voice troubles. It comes nearly a year after Google said that he would avoid public speaking for a time because he had lost his voice. Since then, he has spoken publicly, but with a weak and raspy voice.

One of Mr. Page’s vocal cords was paralyzed after a viral infection 14 years ago, and the second was left with limited movement after a cold last summer. Voice specialists said that it was extremely rare for a patient to experience paralysis or limited movement in both vocal cords, and that as of now, it cannot be reversed.

“Thankfully, after some initial recovery I’m fully able to do all I need to at home and at work, though my voice is softer than before,” Mr. Page wrote in a post on Google Plus.

“And Sergey says I’m probably a better C.E.O. because I choose my words more carefully,” he added, referring to Sergey Brin, who founded Google with Mr. Page.

The condition can become life-threatening, doctors say, when it inhibits breathing. Mr. Page addressed that in his post.

“Vocal cord nerve issues can also affect your breathing, so my ability to exercise at peak aerobic capacity is somewhat reduced,” he wrote. “That said, my friends still think I have way more stamina than them when we go kitesurfing!”

Mr. Page also said that in 2003, he had been diagnosed with Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, an inflammatory thyroid condition that he said caused him no problems. He said it was unclear whether it was related to his vocal cord paralysis.

Hashimoto’s thyroiditis is an autoimmune disorder that is the most common cause of hypothyroidism in the United States, particularly among middle-age women, and can cause fatigue, hoarseness, pain and stiffness, according to the Mayo Clinic. It is treated with hormone replacement drugs, though doctors often delay treatment if the thyroid is functioning normally.

Mr. Page’s health had raised concerns among Google shareholders, particularly after the death of Steve Jobs, Apple’s former chief executive, and questions about an executive’s responsibility to reveal health problems. Google had refused to give any details on Mr. Page’s condition, until now.

The condition is not life-threatening and doctors have ruled out cancer, according to a person briefed on Mr. Page’s health who was not authorized to speak publicly. He speaks regularly in meetings and has continued to run daily operations at Google, the person said.

Mr. Page also said Tuesday that he had given a personal grant to the Voice Health Institute, a group founded in 2003, for a research program on improving vocal cord nerve function. The research will be led by Dr. Steven Zeitels, a laryngeal surgeon at the Massachusetts General Hospital Voice Center, one of several doctors who treated Mr. Page.

“The Pages’ generosity will enable us to help steward a new era of pioneering surgical, medical and engineering innovations that will provide new solutions for the millions of individuals suffering from voice loss and breathing problems in the upper airway,” said a statement from John L. Ward, president of the Voice Health Institute. Well-known singers like Julie Andrews, Steven Tyler and Lionel Richie are on the institute’s board.

To begin, the group has asked people with a similar condition to Mr. Page’s to complete a survey about their symptoms.

A previous version of this post incorrectly stated that both of Mr. Page’s vocal cords were paralyzed. One is paralyzed, but the other has limited movement.

Pornography in Public Causes Some to Gasp, Others to Shrug

The library has been stung by complaints about the content, including explicit pornography, that some people watch in front of others. To address the issue, the library over the last six weeks has installed 18 computer monitors with plastic hoods so that only the person using the computer can see what is on the screen.

“It’s for their privacy, and for ours,” said Michelle Jeffers, the library spokeswoman. The library will also soon post warnings on the screens of all its 240 computers to remind people to be sensitive to other patrons — a solution it prefers to filtering or censoring images.

It is an issue playing out not just at libraries, but in cafes and gyms, on airplanes, trains and highways, and just about any other place where the explosion of computers, tablets and smartphones has given rise to a growing source of dispute: public displays of mature content.

The subject can put personal media on a collision course with personal morality. This is an era, after all, that celebrates people’s ability to watch what they want, when they want, but it also forces bystanders to choose whether to shrug, object or avert their eyes.

Some legislators battle against public displays of pornographic content, at least on the roadways. A bill is pending in the New Jersey legislature to criminalize the playing of obscene material in cars — say, on seat-back DVD players or in party buses — that could viewed by, and distract or offend, others on the road. State Senator Anthony Bucco, who sponsored the bill, said people who view such videos in public “don’t care what anybody around them thinks.”

Similar laws have passed in the last decade in Tennessee, Louisiana and Virginia, and one failed last year in Pennsylvania, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

An antipornography group, Morality in Media, has in recent months launched a “no porn on the plane” campaign, and has contacted most major airlines to argue that they should commit to policing what people watch.

The group took up the cause after its executive director, Dawn Hawkins, was on a flight in January and noticed a man in the row in front of her looking at images on his iPad of naked women whipping each other.

She complained to the flight attendant, who told her he was powerless to force the man to stop, she recalled. The man eventually turned off the images, but Ms. Hawkins continued to press him on why he was looking at those images in public.

She said a woman then came up to her and said, “Be quiet, nobody cares.”

“The fact of the matter is nobody did care,” Ms. Hawkins said. “I couldn’t believe people didn’t care that someone was watching pornography in public. I couldn’t believe society has come to this.”

For its part, Delta Air Lines says that it does not allow people to view “offensive content of any kind,” but also said that flight attendants are trained to make case-by-case assessments depending on circumstances and concerns of other passengers.

A spokeswoman for the Association of Flight Attendants said the issue is a bit of a “gray area,” handled case by case, adding that its members want to avoid offending passengers or playing the role of censors.

One reason the issue is so thorny is that not everyone agrees on what might be considered offensive. That is the case even within Morality in Media, where Ms. Hawkins said people should also be careful with public viewings of violent content.

But that’s not the view of the group’s president, Patrick Trueman, a former Justice Department official in charge of prosecuting child and adult pornography. “It’s not the same situation with violence,” he said, noting that graphic war scenes from a movie like “Saving Private Ryan” can provide a powerful history lesson.

Some people develop their own sliding scales for what is acceptable.

Pornography in Public Causes Some to Gasp, Others to Shrug

The library has been stung by complaints about the content, including explicit pornography, that some people watch in front of others. To address the issue, the library over the last six weeks has installed 18 computer monitors with plastic hoods so that only the person using the computer can see what is on the screen.

“It’s for their privacy, and for ours,” said Michelle Jeffers, the library spokeswoman. The library will also soon post warnings on the screens of all its 240 computers to remind people to be sensitive to other patrons — a solution it prefers to filtering or censoring images.

It is an issue playing out not just at libraries, but in cafes and gyms, on airplanes, trains and highways, and just about any other place where the explosion of computers, tablets and smartphones has given rise to a growing source of dispute: public displays of mature content.

The subject can put personal media on a collision course with personal morality. This is an era, after all, that celebrates people’s ability to watch what they want, when they want, but it also forces bystanders to choose whether to shrug, object or avert their eyes.

Some legislators battle against public displays of pornographic content, at least on the roadways. A bill is pending in the New Jersey legislature to criminalize the playing of obscene material in cars — say, on seat-back DVD players or in party buses — that could viewed by, and distract or offend, others on the road. State Senator Anthony Bucco, who sponsored the bill, said people who view such videos in public “don’t care what anybody around them thinks.”

Similar laws have passed in the last decade in Tennessee, Louisiana and Virginia, and one failed last year in Pennsylvania, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

An antipornography group, Morality in Media, has in recent months launched a “no porn on the plane” campaign, and has contacted most major airlines to argue that they should commit to policing what people watch.

The group took up the cause after its executive director, Dawn Hawkins, was on a flight in January and noticed a man in the row in front of her looking at images on his iPad of naked women whipping each other.

She complained to the flight attendant, who told her he was powerless to force the man to stop, she recalled. The man eventually turned off the images, but Ms. Hawkins continued to press him on why he was looking at those images in public.

She said a woman then came up to her and said, “Be quiet, nobody cares.”

“The fact of the matter is nobody did care,” Ms. Hawkins said. “I couldn’t believe people didn’t care that someone was watching pornography in public. I couldn’t believe society has come to this.”

For its part, Delta Air Lines says that it does not allow people to view “offensive content of any kind,” but also said that flight attendants are trained to make case-by-case assessments depending on circumstances and concerns of other passengers.

A spokeswoman for the Association of Flight Attendants said the issue is a bit of a “gray area,” handled case by case, adding that its members want to avoid offending passengers or playing the role of censors.

One reason the issue is so thorny is that not everyone agrees on what might be considered offensive. That is the case even within Morality in Media, where Ms. Hawkins said people should also be careful with public viewings of violent content.

But that’s not the view of the group’s president, Patrick Trueman, a former Justice Department official in charge of prosecuting child and adult pornography. “It’s not the same situation with violence,” he said, noting that graphic war scenes from a movie like “Saving Private Ryan” can provide a powerful history lesson.

Some people develop their own sliding scales for what is acceptable.