Remember this?

[timmgirvan]

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/...6766677720.txt

We had a big bruhaha on here about a year ago about mandatory shots for underage girls. Seems like the rush to judgement hasn't paid off too well!

Just move this scenario to the current health care bill debacle.......looks like another badly conceived idea!
Another example of govt getting in peoples' lives for their well being!

[Riot]

The efficacy of a particular vaccination has nothing at all to do with the current healthcare reforms about to be passed.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

The efficacy of a particular vaccination has nothing at all to do with the current healthcare reforms about to be passed.

It has to do with the 'mindset' that you knuckleheads have permeated the air with,actually

[hi_im_god]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...per-correction

the retraction from the original source of this story.


http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/...d241678853.txt

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/...9642328892.txt

and the other articles from the posted source.

jesus. this rag actually makes fox look fair and balanced.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

It has to do with the 'mindset' that you knuckleheads have permeated the air with,actually

What "mindset" would that be? You'll have to explain that one. Because what you are talking about - the vaccines - came about during the Bush 2 administration.

You mean the Republicans and Bush are the "knuckleheads"?

But what the second Bush administration has to do with Merck trying to make money in the legal but questionable manner typical of big pharmaceutical companies is beyond me.

You have anything there to connect those two? Is that your point? The Bush administration being paid off by Merck regarding something with these vaccines? For .... what?

And then, what Merck trying to make money, and the Bush Two administration, has to do with any of the current healthcare reforms is ....

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

What "mindset" would that be? You'll have to explain that one. Because what you are talking about - the vaccines - came about during the Bush 2 administration.

You mean the Republicans and Bush are the "knuckleheads"?

But what the second Bush administration has to do with Merck trying to make money in the legal but questionable manner typical of big pharmaceutical companies is beyond me.

You have anything there to connect those two? Is that your point? The Bush administration being paid off by Merck regarding something with these vaccines? For .... what?

And then, what Merck trying to make money, and the Bush Two administration, has to do with any of the current healthcare reforms is ....

Spoken by the republican you have CONSISTENTLY pretended to be. How about a call for not taking (boycotting all Merck patented drugs whether they be now generic or not) and see how that works.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

What "mindset" would that be? You'll have to explain that one. Because what you are talking about - the vaccines - came about during the Bush 2 administration.

You mean the Republicans and Bush are the "knuckleheads"?

But what the second Bush administration has to do with Merck trying to make money in the legal but questionable manner typical of big pharmaceutical companies is beyond me.

You have anything there to connect those two? Is that your point? The Bush administration being paid off by Merck regarding something with these vaccines? For .... what?

And then, what Merck trying to make money, and the Bush Two administration, has to do with any of the current healthcare reforms is ....

boy, give you a nickel and.......

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Spoken by the republican you have CONSISTENTLY pretended to be. How about a call for not taking (boycotting all Merck patented drugs whether they be now generic or not) and see how that works.

You are making zero sense. If you are trying to speak as a good capitalistic Republican, against Merck, you are failing miserably

But your original post was to try and involve the current administration somehow in that? If you could explain how?

This is the way all pharmaceutical companies work. Making money. It drives their very valuable stocks. Who has what new drug in the pipeline, and when do the patents come off the old ones. They create a drug, then they try to create a market directly with the consumer. They no longer can ship doctors off to the Bahamas for "a week of continuing education on NSAID's"

Why, specifically, do you think Merck should be boycotted? Geesh, you sound like an absolute progressive with that anti-drug company suggestion!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

You are making zero sense. If you are trying to speak as a good capitalistic Republican, against Merck, you are failing miserably

But your original post was to try and involve the current administration somehow in that? If you could explain how?

This is the way all pharmaceutical companies work. Making money. It drives their very valuable stocks. Who has what new drug in the pipeline, and when do the patents come off the old ones. They create a drug, then they try to create a market directly with the consumer. They no longer can ship doctors off to the Bahamas for "a week of continuing education on NSAID's"

Why, specifically, do you think Merck should be boycotted? Geesh, you sound like an absolute progressive with that anti-drug company suggestion!

I think you and those who oppose this rediculous fraud imposed on the people by that evil emire known as Merck boycott.

I'm with the minority and think their profits were made after mucho R/D $$$$ was invested and they hit oil.....And America is supposed to run on as you said "Making money. It drives their very valuable stocks."

What are you talking about?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I think you and those who oppose this rediculous fraud imposed on the people by that evil emire known as Merck boycott.

I'm with the minority and think their profits were made after mucho R/D $$$$ was invested and they hit oil.....And America is supposed to run on as you said "Making money. It drives their very valuable stocks."

???? Huh? I don't think Merck imposed any "ridiculous fraud" on anybody. Didn't you bother to read what I wrote?

Hey, Timmi - this vaccine was just approved for men and boys, too, this past weekend.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

???? Huh? I don't think Merck imposed any "ridiculous fraud" on anybody. Didn't you bother to read what I wrote?

Hey, Timmi - this vaccine was just approved for men and boys, too, this past weekend.

You go right ahead on and take some,then. I'm not a fan of the FDA or the drug companies...I was talking about Gardasil. The drug companies have marched out countless drugs that "passed" tests and were gonna heal all the patients....except the patients didn't get better,they died!

[Riot]

I am talking about Gardisil, too. Merck wanted the drug to make money quickly, so they went for the approval as a cancer-preventative in young women, first. Fewer clinical trials, and possible cancer-preventers get greenlighted quickly through FDA to get to public use to save lives.

Gardisil does help in those few cervical cancers associated with post-herpesvirus infection in women.

But the true intended use of the drug is as an STD preventative for sexually transmitted herpesvirus, which is why the company went forward with the additional clinical trials for labeling in men and boys since the drug first came on the market, and the drug got that approval this weekend.

That was Merck's ultimate goal with this drug since the start.

I agree with you, there have been cases of drug companies covering up findings. That's why, unless it's very important, I often don't use new drugs until they have been on the market for a year, out in general public use and misuse in thousands of patients. In the vet world, it's a little better than in the human world, I think, because it's a smaller number of doctors (60,000 or so) and we talk among ourselves, as a profession, more. So "bad juju" with new drugs rumors flys around pretty fast.

I usually fault the FDA for being slow. Lots of good drugs with long histories of successful clinical use in Europe do not get US approval for use.

[timmgirvan]

[quote=Riot]I am talking about Gardisil, too. Merck wanted the drug to make money quickly, so they went for the approval as a cancer-preventative in young women, first. Fewer clinical trials, and possible cancer-preventers get greenlighted quickly through FDA to get to public use to save lives.

Gardisil does help in those few cervical cancers associated with post-herpesvirus infection in women.

But the true intended use of the drug is as an STD preventative for sexually transmitted herpesvirus, which is why the company went forward with the additional clinical trials for labeling in men and boys since the drug first came on the market, and the drug got that approval this weekend.

That was Merck's ultimate goal with this drug since the start.

I agree with you, there have been cases of drug companies covering up findings. That's why, unless it's very important, I often don't use new drugs until they have been on the market for a year, out in general public use and misuse in thousands of patients. In the vet world, it's a little better than in the human world, I think, because it's a smaller number of doctors (60,000 or so) and we talk among ourselves, as a profession, more. So "bad juju" with new drugs rumors flys around pretty fast.

I usually fault the FDA for being slow. Lots of good drugs with long histories of successful clinical use in Europe do not get US approval for use.[/QUOTE

That's great...first Viagra and all the 'pump it up pills', then take away the healthy fear of getting one of the 2 dozen STD's out there! Why don't they just line up the female population for involuntary insemination?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

I am talking about Gardisil, too. Merck wanted the drug to make money quickly, so they went for the approval as a cancer-preventative in young women, first. Fewer clinical trials, and possible cancer-preventers get greenlighted quickly through FDA to get to public use to save lives.

Gardisil does help in those few cervical cancers associated with post-herpesvirus infection in women.

But the true intended use of the drug is as an STD preventative for sexually transmitted herpesvirus, which is why the company went forward with the additional clinical trials for labeling in men and boys since the drug first came on the market, and the drug got that approval this weekend.

That was Merck's ultimate goal with this drug since the start.

I agree with you, there have been cases of drug companies covering up findings. That's why, unless it's very important, I often don't use new drugs until they have been on the market for a year, out in general public use and misuse in thousands of patients. In the vet world, it's a little better than in the human world, I think, because it's a smaller number of doctors (60,000 or so) and we talk among ourselves, as a profession, more. So "bad juju" with new drugs rumors flys around pretty fast.

I usually fault the FDA for being slow. Lots of good drugs with long histories of successful clinical use in Europe do not get US approval for use.[/QUOTE

That's great...first Viagra and all the 'pump it up pills', then take away the healthy fear of getting one of the 2 dozen STD's out there! Why don't they just line up the female population for involuntary insemination?

could you just f'ing learn to just use the "quote" button at the bottom of the post and save me the cognitive dissonance of momentarily thinking you made sense.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

could you just f'ing learn to just use the "quote" button at the bottom of the post and save me the cognitive dissonance of momentarily thinking you made sense.

you pays yer money and ya takes yer chances