HPV vaccine can prevent genital warts in men

[E-Z-B]

Source: AP

ATLANTA - For the first time, an expensive vaccine aimed at preventing cervical cancer in women has proven successful at preventing a disease in men, according to a study released Thursday by the vaccine’s maker.

The disease is genital warts — sexually transmitted, embarrassing and uncomfortable — but not life-threatening.

Still, the results are expected to bolster a likely bid by the vaccine’s manufacturer, Merck & Co. Inc., to begin marketing the vaccine to boys, experts said. Merck plans to ask the government for that approval later this year.

-snip-

The focus was Merck’s vaccine, Gardasil, which is given in three doses over six months and is priced at about $375.

The vaccine targets the two types of HPV, or human papillomavirus, believed to be responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases, and two other types that cause most genital warts. HPV is spread through sex.

In 2006, the U.S. government licensed the vaccine for use in girls and women ages 9 to 26. Males can spread the virus, but the vaccine was not licensed for them because there was no evidence it prevented disease in men.

Though about 40 other countries have approved the vaccine for males, there still is no medical proof Gardasil prevents penile cancer or other HPV-associated cancers in men. There also is no evidence it prevents men from spreading HPV to women.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27697369/

---

Now that men can benefit from it, how much do you want to bet that the right-wing argument that it encourages promiscuity begins to quiet down? Afterall, we live in a double-standard society (well, at least with 46% of the population or so).

[CoffeeCat]

1. Merck decided that they needed...

...a new demographic in order to further enrich themselves. So now they're going after
little boys.

Someone needs to tell this company to go fuck themselves.

[depakid]

4. That was fast....

The next logical step was to provide the vaccine to boys, as more became available. Think about it.

It's been discussed and considered by public health authorities around the world since the vaccine was first approved.

[Liberal Veteran]

9. Gee imagine a vaccine that prevents HPV which causes warts being marketed....

....to people to prevent genital warts.

I'm so shocked. Next someone will tell me they are marketing antibiotics to people with bacterial infections!

[high density]

16. Yes, it sounds so sinister

I can't believe they'd even consider doing this!!

[CoffeeCat]

20. I take antibiotics...

...when my doctor gives me an Rx. Antibiotics have been around for a long time.
We know, in no uncertain terms, that there aren't any serious long-term effects
from taking antibiotics.

We cannot say the same thing for Gardisil.

I have no problem with pharmaceuticals. I have no problem with pharmaceutical companies
selling drugs that help people.

I do have a problem with today's profit-centric drug companies that push and push their
products--before their is adequate time or study to understand long-term effects. Things
used to be different.

If you think this is simply a matter of people avoiding good medicine, then you're over-simplifying
and glossing over a very troubling situation---that these vaccines are being injected into our children and even
the drug companies admit that the long-term effects of these vaccines are unknown.

I'm a concerned mother. The FDA works for the corporations now. All government fail safes--that
are supposed to protect consumers, now exist to enrich the corporations.

You'd have to be dead, in denial or in the pocket of these pharmaceutical companies--not NOT be
concerned.

[depakid]

28. You honestly believe that regulatory agencies in Britain, Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, etc.

are all in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry?

One can easily understand concerns about the FDA and the nature of the profit driven US healthcare system, but to think that every nation abroad is in on some scam (which given that they have universal health care systems would be to their financial detriment) is a bit of a leap, don't you think?

[kestrel91316]

59. I feel sorry for people who understand nothing about immunology

and who fear vaccines because of their lack of understanding. Immunology is a conceptually difficult subject. It was one of my toughest undergraduate subjects.

But YOUR fears notwithstanding, vaccines DO stimulate the immune system in a way scientists understand, and this provides great health benefits to most vaccinates. It's not voodoo. It's REAL science.

What truly DISTURBS me about people like you is that you are not content to politely decline vaccines yourself. You want to deny their documented benefits to others.

[kimmerspixelated]

14. Exactly, especially since

...Gardasil Linked to Seventy-Eight Outbreaks of Genital Warts !!!



The Gardasil vaccine has been linked to 78 outbreaks of genital warts, according to an article in The Fiji Times entitled "Are our girls guinea pigs?" by Matelita Ragogo. In addition to all of the other adverse reactions to this controversial vaccine, children who receive it are subject to outbreaks of genital warts. Unfortunately, not too many doctors take the time to educate parents about some of these possible reactions prior to giving little girls this expensive jab.

Deaths, Miscarriages and Other Adverse Events

While genital warts are certainly disgusting, parents who think that genital warts are the worst possible adverse reaction to the vaccine should think again. According to Ragogo, as of August 14th, including the 78 outbreaks of genital warts, there have been 9,748 adverse events reported as per Judicial Watch, a non-profit watchdog group. Judicial Watch also reports that there have been 21 deaths, not including the deaths (by miscarriage) of 10 unborn babies.

Vaccine No Guarantee Against Cell Abnormalities

"Hundreds of thousands of women who are vaccinated with Gardasil and get yearly pap testing will still get high-grade dysplasia (cell abnormalities)," Ragogo reports. It's not a cancer vaccine, as media hype may lead some people to believe. Ragogo also points out, "Gardasil has been shown to prevent precancerous lesions, but it has been impossible to ascertain whether it will actually prevent cancer because the testing period has been so short."

80% of Cervical Cancer Deaths Happen in Developing Countries

According to an article by the King County Health Department in Washington, the "average age of women newly diagnosed with cervical cancer is between 50 and 55 years," and "risk of developing this cancer is very low among girls less than fifteen." How long will any possible immunity from a vaccine given to a tiny girl last? No one really knows. So, young girls are being vaccinated for potential problems that they may experience 40 years down the road, if at all, at which time any possible immunity conferred from the vaccine may be long gone. Of course, according to an article by the World Health Organization (WHO), 80% of all cervical cancer deaths happen in developing countries, anyway.

Diets Low in Fruits And Vegetables up Cervical Cancer Risk

The King County Health Department also points out that of the various risk factors for cervical cancer, many can be controlled. One risk factor for cervical cancer is HPV. (Hmmm… does this mean that girls who get the vaccine and develop genital warts are now actually increasing their risk for developing cervical cancer?) Ordinarily, getting HPV is not exactly a huge risk for little girls that aren't having sex. Other risk factors include smoking, HIV, race (African American, Latino, Vietnamese and Native American women are more likely to die from cervical cancer), reduced access to health care, and (possibly) the use of oral contraceptives. The article also states, "Diets low in fruits and vegetables are associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer and several other cancers."

Could The Vaccine Cause Cancer, Genotoxicity or Infertility?

Another concern about the HPV vaccine is that it hasn't even been evaluated for its potential to actually cause cancer. Nor has the vaccine been evaluated for the ability to cause genotoxicity (DNA damage). Moreover, it is also unknown as to whether or not this vaccine could possibly cause future infertility. For all of these reasons, and many others that have been previously reported, it would appear prudent for all parents to think twice before subjecting their children to this "mystery" jab.

About the author
Joanne Waldron is a computer scientist with a passion for writing and sharing health-related news and information with others. She runs the Naked Wellness: The Gentle Health Revolution forum, which is devoted to achieving radiant health, well-being, and longevity.

[merwin]

19. You can always tell a biased article when they don't provide control information.

These percentages mean NOTHING unless you also do a control study to see how often these incidents happen without the drug.

78 outbreaks of genital warts linked to the vaccine? How long of a period of time? How many people have had the vaccine? How many people who haven't had the vaccine are linked to genital warts outbreaks?

[cosmicaug]

23. That's totally retarded

This vaccine is utterly incapable of being infectious. This vaccine contains recombinant antigenic proteins from the viruses. It does not contain any virus. It is impossible for this vaccine to produce an HPV infection.

[trotsky]

24. You have to understand the mind of the anti-vaxer.

Since they don't comprehend any of the science involved, ANYTHING becomes plausible. Throw in a paranoid fear of "big pharma" and watch the fireworks.

[kimmerspixelated]

31. I'm still trying to understand the minds

of those that think it is okay to be mass controlled by mandates that have nothing to do with real and safe "health". Go ahead, throw stones at me. It obviously makes you and your cheerleading squad feel like bigger people. I will NOT throw stones your way. I believe it is YOUR RIGHT to do with your body what you want, as is mine. I was merely commenting on the Gardisil finding.

[trotsky]

32. Oh, the agony of martyrdom.

Not to mention hypocrisy - you won't "throw stones" but you'll use strawmen ("mass controlled by mandates") and name-calling ("cheerleading squad"). Absolutely hilarious.

But what's sad is that you, like most other anti-vaxers, just simply cannot understand that decisions about vaccination affect the health of others. It's not just your body involved here.

[alarimer]

62. Let's reframe anti-vaccine to mean pro-infectious disease.

Because that's what they are.

Imagine. Pharmaceutical companies in business to make money. Who'd have thought that? :sarcasm:

(not that this is a perfect system by any means. Still I resent the whole Big Pharma boogeyman. It's so anti-science.)

[truthisfreedom]

2. This is excellent news, but the price is profit-driven.

[WriteDown]

5. The price is profit-driven?

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

8. Yeah, awful bastards trying to recoup their astronomical research and development costs.

If you want lowered drug prices and no dropoff in new-drug production, than you have to implement massively expanded government funding of pharma research alongside whatever price-control mechanism you're planning on enacting.

[Hannah Bell]

22. They spend more on advertising than on R&D, & the US gov funds a

big chunk of basic research.

Pharmaceuticals have some of the highest profit margins of any industry.

[WriteDown]

26. That is mainly to achieve profitability...

I believe that most studies show that you need to spend an inordinate amount on advertising to make a drug profitable.

[Hannah Bell]

34. Gee, I thought it was doctors who prescribed drugs...& I thought they prescribed to the ailment, not

because they saw an ad on TV or a drug rep gave them some logo-ed coffee cups.

Pharmaceutical profit margins are far above most other industries (i.e. nearly 30% profit).

Profit is what remains after costs - of R&D, advertising, manufacture, litigation, etc. - are paid.



"The Pharmaceutical Industry is the most profitable in the U.S. in terms of profit margin. The industry:

Spends less on R&D than goes into profits. In 1999, the top five pharmaceutical companies (ranked by sales) all allocated a higher proportion of their revenue to net income than to R&D.3

Spends $11 billion annually on advertising and marketing.4

Makes $26.2 billion annually in profits.5

Has a profit margin of 28.7 percent, nearly three times higher than the profit margin of other manufacturers of branded consumer goods.6

Ranks #1 in profits among all industries on all measures: return on revenues, assets, and equity.5"


& Bush's Medicare changes have made the pie even jucier.

Not meaning to be rude, but you're talking out your hat.

[WriteDown]

35. So that is why no drug companies ever go out of business....

right? Actually, the emersion of drug advertising really took hold in the early 90's when you started to be able to buy drugs directly. The problem with the drug company is that its boom or bust. Take a look at Vioxx and Bextra as good examples of busts. How much was spent on research, advertising, legal fees, etc?

[Hannah Bell]

36. Merck hasn't gone out of business, & they're still making profits.

They spent 4.85 billion to settle the vioxx lawsuits & still made profit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/business/25drugs.html

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/20/news/companies/merck/index.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/31/bloomberg/bxdrug.php


Pfizer is doing fine too:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/pfizers-profit-triples-after-last/story.aspx?guid=%7BDFA181BD-2FF9-4012-8B04-A2D0C7CAA650%7D

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE49K3H820081021


I don't know why you're worried about pharma going out of business; the cost of defending lawsuits is part of their budget; they have permanent legal teams, & they fight until they cut every judgement as much as possible.

But I'm sure the corps are glad they've got you defending their rep & profit.

[WriteDown]

37. I have no love of the pharm corps...

but I do not have irrational hatred either. I have no problem with them making profit, but its good to realize that its not all boom years. And I was just saying that some pharm corps do still go out of business.

[Hannah Bell]

38. name one. & i don't mean mergers, spin-offs or name change; name one that was bankrupted or failed.

Most of them have been in business a very long time.

Merck, for example, has roots going back to the 1600's.

Its US head set up & directed our germ warfare program.

It's in no danger of EVER going out of business, even if it lost billions, I assure you.

[WriteDown]

39. Haha....

Then you can pretty much classify any large company as never going out of business. Drug companies have been increasingly losing ground to the future of medicine though, biotech.

[Hannah Bell]

40. They're the same companies. You really don't get it.

and you didn't name one.

Merck Serono To Expand Biotech Center

http://www.topix.com/business/biotech/2008/11/merck-serono-to-expand-biotech-center

They're also the same thing as seed, chemical & other ag/food.

[WriteDown]

41. Like I said...

Your qualifiers make it impossible since any failing company is always absorbed. Same withe the mortgage industry. Merck is expanding their biotech research due to them losing ground to biotech companies.

[Hannah Bell]

43. Merck: in business for 350 years.

Drugs are already genetically engineered. Pharma is already invested in biotech. They're not competing sectors, but synergistic.

It's called "life sciences" & it encompasses ag, food, & medicine.

[Hannah Bell]

45. another thing: there are precious few, maybe no, purely US pharmacorrps,

or purely anything corps. almost all the majors started off as european corps which moved capital into the US. when they merge, they're just merging their own capital pools.

The biggest pharmacorp in the world (in terms of market cap) is wuxi, putatively chinese (HQ in the cayman islands). But:

http://in.sys-con.com/node/739459

"Wuxi has enjoyed a close & collaborative relationship with Pfizer for many years..."

Gee, they were only founded in 2000. How'd they get to be the biggest in the world in just 8 years?

I guess it's that "close" relationship with pfizer (& its investors/capital pool).

The pharmacorps don't need 30% profits.

I imagine they give thanks daily for deluded idiots in the general public who let them kill & steal with impunity.

[WriteDown]

46. And Abercrombie and Fitch have been in business

for over 100 years supposedly. Odd that I never saw any of their stores in the 70's and 80's.

[Hannah Bell]

47. That's because they started as a high-end outfitter & were bought out in the 60s.

What's your point? That some businesses go out of business, therefore pharmacorps MUST take 30% profit?

As I said, I'm sure they thank Ba'al every day that the american public are disorganized idiots.


and you still haven't named one major pharmacorps that's ever gone out of business.

[WriteDown]

48. My point is.....

That the Merck now is not the Merck from 350 years ago when some German guy purchased a drug store. That is just ludicrous.

By your rules, name one major auto manufacturer or mortgage lender that has gone out of business. It is impossible if you say you can't include M & A.

[Hannah Bell]

49. No, not exactly the same. But still owned & managed by the same family,

at least into the 1950s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Merck


And most likely the family still has some interest in it:

http://www.merckff.org/financials.html

[WriteDown]

50. So they're all the same?

John Kennedy was the same as Joe and Al Gore Jr. is the same as Al Gore Sr.? I seriously doubt that the family still has any real pull with the company anymore.

[Hannah Bell]

52. The company was 300 years in the same family (& its financiers).

But you think they have no ties.

OK.

[WriteDown]

53. My point is that family members are different....

No one would include Al Gore of being like his father. And why did the Merck family ever give up the company? Seems like they would want to keep control of it to further their plans of world domination :eyes:.

[Hannah Bell]

55. I can do without the eyerolling. Your point is ridiculous. They're not the same people - big deal.

They're the same family. They act in the interest of the family, not the individual, or they wouldn't have kept the business so long.

As to "give up" the company, that's not how it works.

Al Gore is not his father, no, but you can bet his father's connections helped make Al, & you can bet Al's connections helped his daughter marry Andrew Schiff, grandson of John Schiff, great-great grandson of Jacob Schiff, banker & Kuhn, Loeb partner. That money is still in the family too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Schiff

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1DF1E39F930A25754C0A961958260


You might rethink how business & family networks function.

[WriteDown]

56. I never knew Al Gore was a segregationist....

Afterall, that was his father's interest. Thanks for enlightening me. :eyes: Also did not know that Patti Reagan was a neocon. Thanks for enlightening me.

[Hannah Bell]

58. You really are silly. The money & connections are the power, not the politics.

That's what moves from generation to generation.

Some of the Bush ancestors were abolitionists. That's not how they got where they are today.

[WriteDown]

61. Sorry...

I do not always see it that way. A lot can change with a generation.

[Hannah Bell]

63. Well, that's your opinion. With nothing to back it but that.

In fact, you can trace the movements of capital.

A lot can change in a generation because capital requirements change.

The abolitionists were supported by northern industrialists who could make more money with free labor than slaves. Slaves are most cost-effective where population density is low, free labor vice-versa.

The abolitionists were the same families who'd made their $$ transporting slaves & slave goods in previous generations.

The "opinions" change, but the $$$$ go on forever.

[WriteDown]

64. No....

It is your opinion as well. Not all wealth is inherited and power does shift. So you're against abolitionists now? Guess we should bring back the good ol' Dixie then.

[Hannah Bell]

67. You're quick with the straw man, aren't you?

I never said all wealth/power is inherited. Nevertheless, a good deal of it is, & you can follow it down through the generations, & from country to country.

I never said I'm against abolitionists. I noted some historic facts re how the abolitionists made their money & some of the causes of their abolitionism.

Dixie still exists. For example, recent nominee McCain comes from plantation owners.

[WriteDown]

68. Huh?

There will always be people who inherit wealth. The Bush's, The Kennedy's, the Rockefellers, etc., but there are also many who bring themselves up, The Obamas being an excellent example.

Ol' Dixie does not exist.

[Hannah Bell]

69. Obama: grandson of a banker, mother worked for the Ford Foundation,

went to private schools. You're too naive.

[WriteDown]

70. Yep....

He truly is nefarious. I shudder to think what he and his powerful family have in store for this country.

[Hannah Bell]

72. See, there you go with the straw men again. I didn't say he was nefarious,

nor that his family was particularly "powerful," or anything like that.

I merely noted, contrary to your assertion that The Obamas "raised themselves up," Obama started out in probably the upper 5-10%, in terms of wealth. His grandmother was a banker (she, if anyone, did the "raising up), & his mother DID work for the Ford Foundation, he DID go to private schools, including harvard.

For you, apparently, simply to note the facts that cut against the popular mythology is an affront.

This desire for fairy tales v. fact is one of the reasons the country's in trouble.

[WriteDown]

73. Are you sure you are not a neocon plant?

Seems like you have a pretty firm grasp of their talking points.

[Hannah Bell]

74. Ho-ho. The neo-cons are always talking about taking down Big Pharma,

long-standing concentrations of capital tied to family & business networks & stuff like that, are they?

Your line sounds more neo-con to me.

[WriteDown]

75. You seem obsessed....

with conspiracy theory and attaching the label "wealthy" to those that are successful. I've heard that line a ton of times in an attempt to disparage Obama.

[Hannah Bell]

76. Another straw man. Here's what you said:

"There will always be people who inherit wealth. The Bush's, The Kennedy's, the Rockefellers, etc., but there are also many who bring themselves up, The Obamas being an excellent example."

And I answered: grandmother a banker, mother worked for the Ford Foundation, Obama went to private schools including Harvard (grandma paid). I made no judgements about Obama or the Obamas except that: he didn't "bring himself up" anymore than John Kennedy did.

You babble about conspiracy theory & obsession but can't point to a damn thing i've written that's false.

You seem obsessed with the Horatio Alger, bunnies & puppies theory of history & economics, how about that?

Obama would be no-fucking-where without his rich backers.

[WriteDown]

77. So it had nothing to do....

with Obama's natural talent or his hard work in school. It was all thanks to his banker grandmother and wealthy mother. It was just so easy for a black man to attend Harvard, make that a mixed race kid to go to Columbia in the 70's. Think about that for a few moments.

[Hannah Bell]

79. More straw men. I didn't say it was "all" due to his banker g'ma etc.

(though a full ride to harvard ain't hay).

Look, I'm 6 years older than Obama. I went to college - with black people, yes!

The big struggles were long over by the time he got to Harvard in 1979.

[WriteDown]

78. You may also want to read up on Obama's grandparents....

history. Sure sounds like all sunshine and rainbows for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelyn_and_Stanley_Dunham

[Hannah Bell]

80. I've already "read up", unlike you. As I already said, it was g'ma

who did the bootstrap pulling, not obama.

obama's mom went to Mercer Island HS, which, even then, was rich-folks central (I'm from the area). The financial struggles (as ordinary people would understand them) were long over before obama was born.

Quit trying to make out that obama is some kind of horatio alger figure. He ain't.

[WriteDown]

65. No....

It is your opinion as well. Not all wealth is inherited and power does shift. So you're against abolitionists now? Guess we should bring back the good ol' Dixie then.

[Hannah Bell]

51. so name me a major pharmacorps that's been merged/acquired

during the last 30 years, & explain how it was because they were losing money.

[WriteDown]

54. Sure.....

Let's start with Atherogenics and Spectrum.

[Hannah Bell]

57. Atherogenics: founded 1993, 67 employees (now 30), currently in bankruptcy,

(which doesn't necessarily mean the company will disappear).

Hardly a "major". It was a feeder research site for the majors, e.g. fujisawa founded 1894.

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:ypeBaaQZp2gJ:www.mi3.com/pressreleases/2004.01.12.AtheroGenics.pdf+Atherogenics+founded&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us


spectrum, founded 1987, 26 employees: so far as i can tell is still in business, & not a "major".

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS124863+09-May-2008+BW20080509

interesting it's selling some pieces to sargent (founded 2006). i'd look for some shared capital there, if i cared.

[WriteDown]

60. Please enlighten me....

as to what you consider "major." Atherogenics had between 100-1000 employees not too long ago.

[Hannah Bell]

66. according to this:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_/ai_n19197074

atherogenics reduced its headcount from 114 to 67 sometime before 2007.

i don't believe it ever had anywhere near 1000 employees, since it was only founded in 1994.

my cousin runs a retail business with more than 100 employees.

By "major" I mean those businesses we've been talking about, the ones that produce & sell the majority of pharmaceuticals in the world & take the majority of pharmaceutical profits (while, BTW, outsourcing a lot of that production to cheap labor sites like India & China):

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=950E6D5EC3B122A295727EC895E52D99?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=1732790&dType=SUB&history=false


They make billions in profit & have thousands of employees.

The top 10 pharmacops make more in profit than the rest of the Fortune 500.

[bitchkitty]

3. Not life-threatening?

Untreated HPV can lead to cancer.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. It usually does not lead to cancer in men

[Exultant Democracy]

11. But it can, including throat cancer.

If I was single I would probably get it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. That usually only happens to men with weakened immune systems

[AngryAmish]

30. And men with weakened immune systems don't count?

For a long time we have fought to have our fellow citizens recognize folks with HIV as actual persons, not solely as disease carriers. It looks like we failed with you.

[deadmessengers]

17. It leads to cancer in their female sexual partners. n/t

[NickB79]

25. Over 5000 cases of throat and neck cancer in men each year are reported to be HPV-related

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/headneck.htm

"It is estimated that more than 1,700 new cases of HPV-associated head and neck cancers are diagnosed in women and nearly 5,700 are diagnosed in men each year in the United States."

This also doesn't take into account penile and rectal cancers.

[Endangered Specie]

7. I guess what they are trying to say is "wont kill you dead like AIDS"

and I think it only leads to cancer in women right?

[Liberal Veteran]

10. True, but given the choice between some injection site soreness...

...and having warts frozen off my penis or rectum, I'd go for the former.

[bitchkitty]

15. I don't think they use that method anymore.

When I worked at a clinic in the 80s, there was a cream called Aldara, something like that, that worked really well for most of our patients, as in the warts went away and stayed away. They were all female though, I don't know if the cream was for men.

[phantom power]

12. I hope they do a study on whether it can help with plantar warts.

I can't ever seem to get rid of those little fuckers.

[4lbs]

18. They should have said "it helps men grow two inches". Then they couldn't keep it in stock!

:rofl:

[BlueIris]

21. Kick. Any discussion of men's health WRT HPV is a welcome one, IMO. nt

[KakistocracyHater]

27. well those blue pills should only be for married

men, if they cannot prove they're married then no pills. But this vaccine will probably only be covered by insurance companies for men, women will have to get a special ok in order to qualify for it, of course.

[AngryAmish]

29. Great googly-moogly! You have let the anti-vaccine nutters out again

Do you have any idea how long it took to round them up and put them in their pen last time?

[donco6]

71. Some got away and reproduced.

They now run free on a national park preserve in Utah. At night, you can still hear their calls "No mercury! No mercury!"

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Vinca]

42. Translation: not enough profit for Merck in convincing only

half the population they needs this stuff at $375 a whack.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.