Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Larry_OHF · 02-21-2007, 10:32 PM

Thanks for pointing that out to me, wellard. I've had trouble in college literature courses with reading something and not getting the full gist of it like I was suppose to, so I am not surprised by your post.

Referring to your mention "propaganda by the drug companies"...this is most likely the cause of my misinformation or bias viewpoint based on what I thought I knew before posting here and reading up on it afterward. I am sure that the TV ads were trying to convince me that my daughters would die of cervical cancer if I did not get her this vaccine. I think I responded the way they wanted me to, and if that was not their intention, that is still the impression that I have from viewing their ads. That is why I said what I did before going to WebMD and reading up on it a bit more, and also by being educated by your posts.

Now. Let's not forget that my original reason for posting this was to let everyone know that Merck has decided not to pursue the requirement agenda now, and have dropped their lobbying. They say it is because of bad press, but I just do not trust drug companies and would not put it past them to know that there is some harm that could come from the drug and have only recently discovered it, and decided that they'd be in a lot of trouble if this were forced on people...so maybe they have decided to take the quiet road for a while...

Another idea as to why they have decided not to pursue this issue and it just now occurred to me...the INSURANCE AGENCIES have bigger lawyers and the insurance people have come out and said NO! We will not pay for this drug...

Or maybe Merck realizes that there are tons of people in the US that have no insurance at all and so the bill for the shot would come out of pocket, but what if people did not get it because they were too poor, or what if they got it and then you could not find them to bill them (ie any illegal immigrant).

I think Merck pulled out for money reasons...not because they were afraid that they were getting bad press...or maybe my first idea is right and they are investigating a potential risk that only recently showed up.

Opinions?

02-21-2007, 10:32 PM	#10
Larry_OHF Ironworks Moderator Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Midlands, South Carolina Age: 49 Posts: 14,759	Thanks for pointing that out to me, wellard. I've had trouble in college literature courses with reading something and not getting the full gist of it like I was suppose to, so I am not surprised by your post. Referring to your mention "propaganda by the drug companies"...this is most likely the cause of my misinformation or bias viewpoint based on what I thought I knew before posting here and reading up on it afterward. I am sure that the TV ads were trying to convince me that my daughters would die of cervical cancer if I did not get her this vaccine. I think I responded the way they wanted me to, and if that was not their intention, that is still the impression that I have from viewing their ads. That is why I said what I did before going to WebMD and reading up on it a bit more, and also by being educated by your posts. Now. Let's not forget that my original reason for posting this was to let everyone know that Merck has decided not to pursue the requirement agenda now, and have dropped their lobbying. They say it is because of bad press, but I just do not trust drug companies and would not put it past them to know that there is some harm that could come from the drug and have only recently discovered it, and decided that they'd be in a lot of trouble if this were forced on people...so maybe they have decided to take the quiet road for a while... Another idea as to why they have decided not to pursue this issue and it just now occurred to me...the INSURANCE AGENCIES have bigger lawyers and the insurance people have come out and said NO! We will not pay for this drug... Or maybe Merck realizes that there are tons of people in the US that have no insurance at all and so the bill for the shot would come out of pocket, but what if people did not get it because they were too poor, or what if they got it and then you could not find them to bill them (ie any illegal immigrant). I think Merck pulled out for money reasons...not because they were afraid that they were getting bad press...or maybe my first idea is right and they are investigating a potential risk that only recently showed up. Opinions? __________________