Print Page | Close Window

Gardasil "Parent Shaming" Ads

Printed From: Commercials I Hate!
Category: The Message Board
Forum Name: Commercials You Hate !!!!!
Forum Description: Go here to voice your opinions
URL: http://www.commercialsihate.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=23685
Printed Date: 15 Oct 2018 at 9:06pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Gardasil "Parent Shaming" Ads
Posted By: Redheaded Gigi
Subject: Gardasil "Parent Shaming" Ads
Date Posted: 16 Aug 2016 at 9:34pm
Newbie here.  I'm hating on these relatively new Gardasil ads that shame parents over not getting their kids the vaccine.  While I'm not anti-vax by any means, I am somewhat suspicious when Merck tries to shame me into giving my kids their vaccine.

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/Ap1V/merck-hpv-vaccination



Replies:
Posted By: TheNilvarg
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2016 at 5:16am
Good, people who refuse to vaccinate should be publicly shamed.


Posted By: MrTim
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2016 at 5:51am
"We're Merck, and we think your daughters are sluts, so they need to be HPV vaccinated RIGHT NOW!"
Shocked


-------------
http://mrtim1k.blogspot.com/ - WKRP closing theme lyrics HERE!


Posted By: Papa Lazarou
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2016 at 6:47am
I personally don't see what's wrong with shaming retards who think some blonde slut and a proven liar know better than the entirety of the medical and scientific community.

As for "sluts", I think it's pretty much been irrefutably proven that the ridiculous concept of 'abstinence' doesn't work, and in fact has been leading to more problems due to proponents of abstinence thinking that the best way to enforce it is via enforced sexual ignorance. Now, until we get our heads out of the proverbial sand and start enforcing mandatory no-exceptions sex education starting at a young age - a method that has been proven to reduce the risks of pregnancy and STD among teens in other countries - then there's no reason to leave things up to idiots who think "My little angel is better than all the rest and would never have any sex without my permission".

Anyway, while there's not enough research for solid statistical likelihood, evidence has already shown that HPV can be passed orally - not just from oral sex but even kissing. So even the "good little virgins" aren't 'safe'.

Simply no reason to NOT get the vaccine unless you have some kind of immunodeficiency problem. Every single person who willingly or willingly-by-proxy elects out of getting vaccinated produces the risk of passing it to those who cannot be vaccinated, or giving it the environment in which to mutate in a way that makes the vaccine ineffective.


-------------
Banana!
BANANA!!
BANANA!!!
BANANA!!
Banana!


Posted By: the raytownian
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2016 at 7:12pm
Originally posted by Redheaded Gigi Redheaded Gigi wrote:

While I'm not anti-vax by any means, I am somewhat suspicious when Merck tries to shame me into giving my kids their vaccine.

Same here. I don't even have kids, and I am in no way sympathetic to the whole anti-vaccine movement, but I just love how pharmaceutical companies try to push drugs by manipulating people's fears and emotions, as if I'm supposed to believe they have any concerns other than making money. They really have no shame.


Posted By: cheesenado
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2016 at 12:40am
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou Papa Lazarou wrote:

 Anyway, while there's not enough research for solid statistical likelihood, evidence has already shown that HPV can be passed orally - not just from oral sex but even kissing. So even the "good little virgins" aren't 'safe'.

Yes. If the vaccine gives young gals and guys protection from developing cancer in the future, why is that a bad thing? Those with HPV may not show any signs or symptoms, and by the someone knows that they have HPV, it could be years after having an encounter with an infected person.


Posted By: Redheaded Gigi
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2016 at 2:32am
That's my entire problem with the commercial.  If it were a CDC commercial, I'd have a different view; but I don't need Merck to guilt me into getting my kid vaxed so they can make a gazillion dollars.


Posted By: Redheaded Gigi
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2016 at 2:42am
Not everyone who is wary of this particular vaccine is a "retard", listens to Jenny McCarthy, and/or believes that their child won't engage in sexual activity.  In my own particular case, I have two children with Crohn's disease who receive Remicade infusions and given that we have no family history of Crohn's and there's very little understanding about what causes the disease or induces a flare, I'm wary of just about anything my children put into their bodies.  While they and their brother, who does not have Crohn's, are receiving the Gardasil, I don't need Merck to try to "guilt" me into doing anything.  There have been enough imperfect, potentially guilt-inducing choices to be made with Crohn's treatment to last me a lifetime.  Also, I don't think Merck gives a flying f**k if my kids or if anyone else's kids get HPV or HPV-related cancers; their concern is all about the company's profits. 


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2016 at 9:10am
Expecting Merck to care about our health is like expecting the supermarket to care that we're out of bread and milk.  They're businesses.  They're not there to care; they're there to fulfill a need and to make profits.
 
 


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2016 at 2:49pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Expecting Merck to care about our health is like expecting the supermarket to care that we're out of bread and milk.  They're businesses.  They're not there to care; they're there to fulfill a need and to make profits.


Cannot agree with that. If all they are interested in is profits and don't CARE about the people who use their products, then they should get out of the Health CARE business.

Note the word CARE in the title.

It's called the Health CARE industry, not the Health Profit Generating industry for a reason.

If all they're interested in is profits, they should become a Hedge Fund management company, or manufacture industrial solvents or something.

Not all corporations can or should be lumped together in the same basket with regards to what is expected out of them. The Health Care industry is, or should be, more than just a corporate profit generator. Health Care should be a calling, with different standards than other industries. If they are making medicines to cure diseases but don't care about the people who use them, why should we have any faith or confidence that they'll go to the greatest lengths possible to make sure those medicines are both effective and won't have harmful side effects? Why should we trust them to put our well being ahead of what you feel is their primary reason for being, making the maximum level profit possible?

/Rant.



-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2016 at 9:49pm
 
Merck "cares" to the extent that a corporate entity can "care".  Hell, it makes medicines to, presumably, make us healthier.  That's how it cares.  It doesn't have feelings.
 
And to expect that medication be free of side effects---well, we'd be waiting forever for that medication to be made available.  Hell, even aspirin still has side effects.
 
As far as profits---hell, I want them to make big profits.  The more profits, the more that goes into research and development.  I've read that it costs $1 billion to develop a new drug.
 
 


Posted By: cheesenado
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2016 at 10:50pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

 
Merck "cares" to the extent that a corporate entity can "care".  Hell, it makes medicines to, presumably, make us healthier.  That's how it cares.  It doesn't have feelings.
 
And to expect that medication be free of side effects---well, we'd be waiting forever for that medication to be made available.  Hell, even aspirin still has side effects.
 
As far as profits---hell, I want them to make big profits.  The more profits, the more that goes into research and development.  I've read that it costs $1 billion to develop a new drug.
 
 

^Thumbs Up^ I don't think people realize how much it costs in money (and time) to develop a new drug that works. Those companies still have to buy equipment, pay employees, and fund future research and testing. 


Posted By: Papa Lazarou
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2016 at 11:52pm
I can't speak on this one, but aren't most vaccines nothing but money sinks for these companies? They make little profit on most of them.
 


-------------
Banana!
BANANA!!
BANANA!!!
BANANA!!
Banana!


Posted By: TheNilvarg
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 12:06am
Thor wins this thread. So tired of uneducated people bashing the pharmaceuticals industry.


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 12:16am
https://postimg.org/image/96gq9jsux/" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 12:19am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Merck "cares" to the extent that a corporate entity can "care".  Hell, it makes medicines to, presumably, make us healthier.  That's how it cares.  It doesn't have feelings.

And to expect that medication be free of side effects---well, we'd be waiting forever for that medication to be made available.  Hell, even aspirin still has side effects.

As far as profits---hell, I want them to make big profits.  The more profits, the more that goes into research and development.  I've read that it costs $1 billion to develop a new drug.


That's all beside the point.

Corporations are run by people, not robots or computers.

The people at the top who sit on the board are the corporation and they're also human beings. As such, they are expected to care about the people who put their products inside their bodies, usually at a huge financial expense.

I never suggested that they shouldn't make a profit, but that shouldn't be their number one concern, and they need to do it in such a way that they CARE enough about the people who use what they develop so that they don't start getting CAREless and sloppy, putting people's lives and health at risk.

This stone cold, unfeeling, straight line "logic" that conservatives love to employ never really holds up under the light of day.








-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 12:22am
Originally posted by TheNilvarg TheNilvarg wrote:

Thor wins this thread. So tired of uneducated people bashing the pharmaceuticals industry.


1) You don't know WTF you're talking about.

2) I wasn't bashing anyone.

3) I am more educated than you are, even though that likely isn't saying much.

4) If you send him a PM and ask him nicely, maybe Thor will send you a picture of himself. You can frame it and keep it on your night stand.



-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 12:24am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:


https://postimg.org/image/96gq9jsux/" rel="nofollow">


Maybe you two should get a room.

I wouldn't let an ass kissing from that guy go to my head if I were you.

He's obviously clueless.

Too....



-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 12:26am
Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Merck "cares" to the extent that a corporate entity can "care".  Hell, it makes medicines to, presumably, make us healthier.  That's how it cares.  It doesn't have feelings.

And to expect that medication be free of side effects---well, we'd be waiting forever for that medication to be made available.  Hell, even aspirin still has side effects.

As far as profits---hell, I want them to make big profits.  The more profits, the more that goes into research and development.  I've read that it costs $1 billion to develop a new drug.


That's all beside the point.

Corporations are run by people, not robots or computers.

The people at the top who sit on the board are the corporation and they're also human beings. As such, they are expected to care about the people who put their products inside their bodies, usually at a huge financial expense.

I never suggested that they shouldn't make a profit, but that shouldn't be their number one concern, and they need to do it in such a way that they CARE enough about the people who use what they develop so that they don't start getting CAREless and sloppy, putting people's lives and health at risk.

This stone cold, unfeeling, straight line "logic" that conservatives love to employ never really holds up under the light of day.

 
 
Sorry, but it all comes down to the money.
 
 


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 12:48am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Sorry, but it all comes down to the money.


Of course it does.

Never said it didn't.

But it's still not right. As evidenced by the number of half-assed junk they're putting out there that's making people sicker than they were to begin with, all because they don't feel as a corporate entity, it's incumbent upon them to care about the people who use their products.

Like I said, with that attitude, they should get out of the business and do something else.



-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Papa Lazarou
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 1:15am
^Then take umbridge with our current standards of ethics and testing laws and regulations and restrictions - not the companies.

The simple and sad fact is that within the current laws, by the time something even gets approved for human testing, so much testing has had to qualify it for THAT so that they're already at the breaking point when they do test on humans. and even when they CAN test on humans, the conditions, controls, etc. are so much more varied and uncontrollable because - coming back to ethics - there's very little way to solidly restrict variables of error or outside contamination of results.

Also, while we have other animal species whose life cycles and internal systems closely mimic our own to where they become better options for seeing long-term usage potentials, the end-fact is that this simply isn't a perfect replacement for seeing what living 80-90-100+ years total would be like - whether the product is taken for a little while or long-term. Even if synthetic or cloned humans became a viable option - how long would it be before uptight ethical standards affected THEIR use as well. Hell, ridiculous ethical standards pretty much single-handedly halted an amazingly successful study on synthetic wombs simply because a full clearance hadn't been achieved before using human subjects.


Also, while there's some legitimate cases of medicines causing serious problems that required a reworking of the medication itself - an even huger proportion of medical lawsuit/damage reports were found to result from abuse, misuse, or cases of extremely rare cross-affect - such as a case where one medication had adverse reactions when the user's diet contained onions.
 
http://www.fdareview.org/03_drug_development.php" rel="nofollow - Here's a good link on the subject .


-------------
Banana!
BANANA!!
BANANA!!!
BANANA!!
Banana!


Posted By: Donathan
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 2:28am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:


Expecting Merck to care about our health is like expecting the supermarket to care that we're out of bread and milk.  They're businesses.  They're not there to care; they're there to fulfill a need and to make profits.
 
 



Thor, what you just said here about businesses caring about profits and not people reminds me of a complaint I read on a TitleMax review website. Something like, "My husband had a job when we took out a loan from TitleMax and I am on disability. My husband was unexpectedly soon laid off from his job and we still had the TitleMax loan looming over our heads. I called TitleMax to explain that my husband didn't have a job anymore and I was on disability and it would be virtually impossible to pay back the loan anytime soon. TitleMax coldly told us we still had to pay back the loan on the agreed date. TitleMax had no compassion or sympathy for us! All they cared about was their money! We never should have taken out a loan from them!

-------------
My name is Donathan, pronounced the same way you pronounce Jonathan, except with a D. :D $608 for her brother's scooter. Fair is fair my ass. Being tough on Public Access TV is priceless.







Posted By: aka ron
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 2:34am
Just like Donna...the side effects are often worse than the initial illness. The Rx companies only care about profits. Death, should never be a side effect.
Just look at all of the class action lawsuits.

-------------
I can't complain but sometimes I still do.


Posted By: Donathan
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 3:15am
Good point, Ron about death not supposing to be a side effect. I love how monotone most commercial announcers sound when they say,"Using Lanitra for Rheumatoid Arthritis may cause death." Um, no thank you! I'd rather have Rheumatoid Arthritis than die!

-------------
My name is Donathan, pronounced the same way you pronounce Jonathan, except with a D. :D $608 for her brother's scooter. Fair is fair my ass. Being tough on Public Access TV is priceless.







Posted By: Anduril
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 3:20am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

 
Merck "cares" to the extent that a corporate entity can "care"...
 
As far as profits---hell, I want them to make big profits.  The more profits, the more that goes into research and development. 
 
I've read that it costs $1 billion to develop a new drug.
 
 
 
Yes, and $998 Million of that is for TV advertising!!
Hey, it's expensive getting naked OJ's to sing in the shower.  Confused
 
 


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 3:47am
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou Papa Lazarou wrote:

^Then take umbridge with our current standards of ethics and testing laws and regulations and restrictions - not the companies.


I'm not taking umbrage with anyone, PL. I just disagree with the notion that it's not the business of drug companies to care about the people who use their products.



-------------
Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


Posted By: Papa Lazarou
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 4:33am
I say they do as much as any other company cares about consumers. But if there IS a discrepancy in their "car" I'd say it's far more likely due to the things I mentioned. Putting out a product where it still requires an 11-14 year monitoring process is far more due to the financial strain the repressive ethical standards put those companies under. Even so, it's VERY easy to prove that no company just randomly discovers a compound and starts selling it two weeks later without researching it enough. It's a hugely laborious process to get it to "release-ready" stages/

As for the point some other posters mentioned about "May cause death", this doesn't always actually have any truth to it. It's yet again one of the restrictions. During the testing phases, there's a certain percentage of animal subjects that can die during the testing process before the compound gets labelled as "may cause death". This doesn't relate solely to the tested product, but any death where the product itself cannot be certainly said to not have played a part (which is hard to do). Similarly, anything human subjects experience during the testing processes can be listed as a side-effect, if it is NOT able to be totally discredited as having anything to do with the product.


-------------
Banana!
BANANA!!
BANANA!!!
BANANA!!
Banana!


Posted By: the raytownian
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 12:45pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Expecting Merck to care about our health is like expecting the supermarket to care that we're out of bread and milk.  They're businesses.  They're not there to care; they're there to fulfill a need and to make profits.
 


See, that's what I'm on about. I don't expect Merck to care, I just feel insulted that they pretend to care. I'd really prefer it if all drug/pharma companies pushed facts and figures to make their points, and not a bunch of manipulative soap opera BS.


Posted By: aka ron
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 6:26pm
https://www.drugwatch.com/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - https://www.drugwatch.com/lawsuits/
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/abilify/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Abilify
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/accutane/lawsuit.php" rel="nofollow - Accutane
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/actos/lawsuit.php" rel="nofollow - Actos
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/avandia/lawsuit.php" rel="nofollow - Avandia
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/bair-hugger/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Bair Hugger Warming Blanket
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/bedsores/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Bedsores
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/benicar/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Benicar
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/hip-replacement/biomet/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Biomet (Hip)
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/transvaginal-mesh/bladder-sling/" rel="nofollow - Bladder Slings
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/januvia/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Byetta
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/cerebral-erbs-palsy/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Cerebral Palsy
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/crestor/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Crestor
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/cymbalta/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Cymbalta
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/davinci-surgery/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - da Vinci Robotic Surgery
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/depakote/lawsuit.php" rel="nofollow - Depakote
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/depuy-hip/lawsuit.php" rel="nofollow - DePuy (Hip)
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/knee-replacement/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - DePuy (Knee)
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/ercp/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - ERCP and Duodenoscopes
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/e-cigarettes/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - E-Cigarettes
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/effexor/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Effexor
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/eliquis/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Eliquis
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/cerebral-erbs-palsy/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Erb's Palsy
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/essure/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Essure
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/invokana/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Farxiga
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/cipro-levaquin-avelox/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/fosamax/lawsuits.php" rel="nofollow - Fosamax
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/granuflo-naturalyte/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - GranuFlo
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/hip-replacement/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Hip Replacements
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/infuse/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - INFUSE Bone Graft
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/invokana/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Invokana
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/ivc-filters/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - IVC Filter Lawsuits
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/januvia/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Januvia
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/knee-replacement/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Knee Replacements
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/l-citrulline/" rel="nofollow - L-Citrulline
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/lexapro/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Lexapro
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/lipitor/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Lipitor
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/mirena/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Mirena
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/granuflo-naturalyte/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - NaturaLyte
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/nesina/" rel="nofollow - Nesina
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/nexium/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Nexium
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/nursing-home-abuse/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Nursing Home Abuse
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/nuvaring/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - NuvaRing
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/januvia/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Onglyza
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/paxil/lawsuit.php" rel="nofollow - Paxil
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/morcellators/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Power Morcellators
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/pradaxa/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Pradaxa
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/prilosec/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Prilosec
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/propecia/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Propecia
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/proton-pump-inhibitors/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Proton Pump Inhibitors
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/prozac/lawsuit.php" rel="nofollow - Prozac
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/tardive-dyskinesia/" rel="nofollow - Reglan
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/risperdal/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Risperdal
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/hip-replacement/smith-nephew/" rel="nofollow - Smith & Nephew
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/stryker/lawsuit-hip-replacement/" rel="nofollow - Stryker Hip Implant
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/symbyax/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Symbyax
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/taxotere/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Taxotere
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/testosterone/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Testosterone
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/tobacco/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Tobacco
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/topamax/lawsuit.php" rel="nofollow - Topamax
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/tradjenta/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Tradjenta
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/transvaginal-mesh/lawsuit.php" rel="nofollow - Transvaginal Mesh
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/tylenol/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Tylenol
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/viagra/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Viagra
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/victoza/" rel="nofollow - Victoza
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/vioxx/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Vioxx
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/xarelto/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Xarelto
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/xolair/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Xolair
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/yaz/lawsuit.php" rel="nofollow - Yaz
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/zimmer-hip/replacement-lawsuit.php" rel="nofollow - Zimmer (Hip)
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/zithromax-z-pak/lawsuit/" rel="nofollow - Zithromax
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/zofran/lawsuits/" rel="nofollow - Zofran
  • https://www.drugwatch.com/zoloft/lawsuits.php" rel="nofollow - Zoloft


  • -------------
    I can't complain but sometimes I still do.


    Posted By: Jimbo
    Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 6:52pm
    Originally posted by the raytownian the raytownian wrote:

    Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

    Expecting Merck to care about our health is like expecting the supermarket to care that we're out of bread and milk.  They're businesses.  They're not there to care; they're there to fulfill a need and to make profits.


    See, that's what I'm on about. I don't expect Merck to care, I just feel insulted that they pretend to care. I'd really prefer it if all drug/pharma companies pushed facts and figures to make their points, and not a bunch of manipulative soap opera BS.


    I think my initial response to Thor's comment was misconstrued by some.

    I was not bashing the pharma companies, nor did I mean to imply that they DON'T care. They are after all, ran by humans, most of whom must have some level of human compassion. I also was not suggesting that they take a personal interest in every case and every patient who is prescribed their product and get weepy when things don't work out well for some of them.

    The only point I was trying to make, was that if they are going to be involved in the production of these products that are supposed to cure and heal sick and injured people, they really ought to have a CARING ATTITUDE about people in general and for the users of their product as a group.

    Thor's comment seemed to suggest that the people who run these companies should take the attitude of "Fück these people and their problems. We couldn't give a sh*t about anything other than getting our products on the market and making a ton of money".

    That might be acceptable in some industries where people's lives and health are not part of the bottom line, but if you're in the business of producing products meant to improve the lives and health of the people who use them, you ought to at least care about them as a whole.

    Or at least *I* think so.




    -------------
    Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


    Posted By: Thor
    Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 8:26pm
    Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:



    Thor's comment seemed to suggest that the people who run these companies should take the attitude of "Fück these people and their problems. We couldn't give a sh*t about anything other than getting our products on the market and making a ton of money".



    It's a corporation and, as such, does not have feelings, negative or positive.  There may be a PR person whose job it is to make it sound like the corporation has this heartfelt concern for people's health but it's still a non-human entity.
     
    But if you're talking about the people who run the corporation---well, people are there to do their jobs.  The CEOs and CFOs and COOs care insofar as the drugs they come up with are successful.  And really, isn't that more "caring" than some platitudes that come out of a PR person's mouth?
     
     


    Posted By: Jimbo
    Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 10:03pm
    Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

    It's a corporation and, as such, does not have feelings, negative or positive.  There may be a PR person whose job it is to make it sound like the corporation has this heartfelt concern for people's health but it's still a non-human entity.

    But if you're talking about the people who run the corporation---well, people are there to do their jobs.  The CEOs and CFOs and COOs care insofar as the drugs they come up with are successful.  And really, isn't that more "caring" than some platitudes that come out of a PR person's mouth?


    I think we're still not quite on the same page here.

    You say a corporation ("it") is a non-human entity. I suppose that depends upon how you look at a corporation. If you see a corporation as nothing more than a collection of contractual legalities and words on documents filed with the proper governing authorities, then I suppose that is true. But if you see a corporation as a group of people working together, providing some product or service to people or other businesses, then it is very much a human entity.

    I see it the second way. And when a corporation is involved in something like producing medication, I think it's downright dangerous for the people who run it to not care about the people who use their products. If they don't care about the people who are using their medications, what are the chances that they might try to cut corners, fudge test results, withhold data that might make it harder to get their products approved by the FDA, etc.

    I think that caring about people is of paramount importance in this industry above all others.



    -------------
    Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


    Posted By: Papa Lazarou
    Date Posted: 19 Aug 2016 at 11:59pm
    Originally posted by the raytownian the raytownian wrote:

    Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

    Expecting Merck to care about our health is like expecting the supermarket to care that we're out of bread and milk.  They're businesses.  They're not there to care; they're there to fulfill a need and to make profits.
     


    See, that's what I'm on about. I don't expect Merck to care, I just feel insulted that they pretend to care. I'd really prefer it if all drug/pharma companies pushed facts and figures to make their points, and not a bunch of manipulative soap opera BS.
    I'd love that, myself, but I think an important issue is that they want to appeal to a wide audience, and there's a specific braindead least-common-denominator out there who recoil at facts and figures and think big words are a sign of the devil....sadly, these are the people producing the most childdren

    -------------
    Banana!
    BANANA!!
    BANANA!!!
    BANANA!!
    Banana!


    Posted By: Donathan
    Date Posted: 20 Aug 2016 at 1:06am
    Ron, that list of all the medicines you put that are now in lawsuits is really sad!:(

    -------------
    My name is Donathan, pronounced the same way you pronounce Jonathan, except with a D. :D $608 for her brother's scooter. Fair is fair my ass. Being tough on Public Access TV is priceless.







    Posted By: Anduril
    Date Posted: 20 Aug 2016 at 2:52am
    Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

      (snip - in reply to Thor) 

    I think we're still not quite on the same page here.

    You say a corporation ("it") is a non-human entity. I suppose that depends upon how you look at a corporation. If you see a corporation as nothing more than a collection of contractual legalities and words on documents filed with the proper governing authorities, then I suppose that is true. But if you see a corporation as a group of people working together, providing some product or service to people or other businesses, then it is very much a human entity.

    I see it the second way. And when a corporation is involved in something like producing medication, I think it's downright dangerous for the people who run it to not care about the people who use their products. If they don't care about the people who are using their medications, what are the chances that they might try to cut corners, fudge test results, withhold data that might make it harder to get their products approved by the FDA, etc.

    I think that caring about people is of paramount importance in this industry above all others.

     
    If I may...?
     
    I see ALL corporations a third way:  A legal extention, and facilitator of good old fashioned GREED.
     
    Having been a "C-Level" exec in a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ, I can assure you greed knows no boundaries.  The stakeholders (banks, institutional investors, VC's) are there to make money and they often don't need or care to know anything about the business.  Even the ones who say they do, A) only say that about highly successful companies, often when they've have very little to do with said success, or B) only "think" they care or know, when the reality is otherwise.
     
    Seriously:  Greed knows no boundaries.
    That's pretty much all you need to know. 


    Posted By: Jimbo
    Date Posted: 20 Aug 2016 at 3:12am
    Originally posted by Anduril Anduril wrote:

    If I may...?
     
    I see ALL corporations a third way:  A legal extention, and facilitator of good old fashioned GREED.
     
    Having been a "C-Level" exec in a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ, I can assure you greed knows no boundaries.  The stakeholders (banks, institutional investors, VC's) are there to make money and they often don't need or care to know anything about the business.  Even the ones who say they do, A) only say that about highly successful companies, often when they've have very little to do with said success, or B) only "think" they care or know, when the reality is otherwise.
     
    Seriously:  Greed knows no boundaries.
    That's pretty much all you need to know. 



    You certainly may, and I have no reason to doubt you, though I was/am willing to give any one of them the benefit of the doubt.

    I'm just speaking in terms of how it oughtta be.

    Assuming what you say is also true of big pharma, then it's no wonder there is a cancer drug on the market that extends life by only a few months and costs over $100k per dose.







    -------------
    Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


    Posted By: PaWolf
    Date Posted: 20 Aug 2016 at 4:36am
    Originally posted by Anduril Anduril wrote:

    Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

      (snip - in reply to Thor) 

    I think we're still not quite on the same page here.

    You say a corporation ("it") is a non-human entity. I suppose that depends upon how you look at a corporation. If you see a corporation as nothing more than a collection of contractual legalities and words on documents filed with the proper governing authorities, then I suppose that is true. But if you see a corporation as a group of people working together, providing some product or service to people or other businesses, then it is very much a human entity.

    I see it the second way. And when a corporation is involved in something like producing medication, I think it's downright dangerous for the people who run it to not care about the people who use their products. If they don't care about the people who are using their medications, what are the chances that they might try to cut corners, fudge test results, withhold data that might make it harder to get their products approved by the FDA, etc.

    I think that caring about people is of paramount importance in this industry above all others.

     
    If I may...?
     
    I see ALL corporations a third way:  A legal extention, and facilitator of good old fashioned GREED.
     
    Having been a "C-Level" exec in a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ, I can assure you greed knows no boundaries.  The stakeholders (banks, institutional investors, VC's) are there to make money and they often don't need or care to know anything about the business.  Even the ones who say they do, A) only say that about highly successful companies, often when they've have very little to do with said success, or B) only "think" they care or know, when the reality is otherwise.
     
    Seriously:  Greed knows no boundaries.
    That's pretty much all you need to know. 
    Well said, true...but, about 7/8 of a cigar.
    The non-execs also need to understand and see the signs of the horrific 'can we still be friends?'-side of greed:
    "Please understand this is nothing personal - it's a 'business decision'..."
     


    -------------
    X               <sig.nature>
    "What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


    Posted By: sgtrock21
    Date Posted: 20 Aug 2016 at 2:33pm
    Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

    Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

    Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

    Merck "cares" to the extent that a corporate entity can "care".  Hell, it makes medicines to, presumably, make us healthier.  That's how it cares.  It doesn't have feelings.

    And to expect that medication be free of side effects---well, we'd be waiting forever for that medication to be made available.  Hell, even aspirin still has side effects.

    As far as profits---hell, I want them to make big profits.  The more profits, the more that goes into research and development.  I've read that it costs $1 billion to develop a new drug.


    That's all beside the point.

    Corporations are run by people, not robots or computers.

    The people at the top who sit on the board are the corporation and they're also human beings. As such, they are expected to care about the people who put their products inside their bodies, usually at a huge financial expense.

    I never suggested that they shouldn't make a profit, but that shouldn't be their number one concern, and they need to do it in such a way that they CARE enough about the people who use what they develop so that they don't start getting CAREless and sloppy, putting people's lives and health at risk.

    This stone cold, unfeeling, straight line "logic" that conservatives love to employ never really holds up under the light of day.

     
     
    Sorry, but it all comes down to the money.
     
     "This stone cold, unfeeling, straight line "logic" that conservatives love to employ never really holds up under the light of day." Actually I'm very relieved that Jimbo included this statement. Otherwise I would have had to ask: Who are you and what have you done with Jimbo? I like to think most of the actual researchers have humanitarian intentions but some are only seeking fame and recognition of their peers. Corporate profit generates stockholder dividends which generates more stockholders. Economics 101.Wink  


    -------------
    EEEEts All so REEEdEEEculous


    Posted By: PaWolf
    Date Posted: 20 Aug 2016 at 7:14pm
    ^^^As I read the above exchanges, I would almost advise the naysayers to watch the 'Mr. Robot' series, simply for the office scenes and business-local government/foreign government exchanges. Very ugly and disheartening, yet typical and certainly supports the concept of existence in the name of 'greed'.
    Yea, yea, yea...once upon a time I wore an 'executive' titleLOL and maybe I still do, although I like to consider myself more just an organizer/effort participant who sits and eats with anyone and everyone and someone who likes to ensure we all eat tomorrow. Mind you, to ensure this, it means, in assorted ways, I may be construed as 'greedy'.  
    Then again, I'll say too many people simply take far too much for granted, that this life is free, and somebody owes them something. Yea, far too many people are seriously friggin' idiots.
    A little comment & perspective on 'big pharma': 
    My focus, from 1998 until 2003 was almost solely concentrating on 'big pharma' organizations that manufactured human medicines that treated anything from the base of the neck to the top of the head and their (here comes the legal term) 'Validated' automated manufacturing systems, where there is *NO* room for 'error'.
    Everyone knows a medicine manufactured and marketed in the U.S. of Americo can generally be trusted to be precisely what it says. I'm not touching the topic of 'prescribed'.
    Everyone knows negative reactions to medicines can lead to personal death, or personal wealth, and also feed the americanized cockroaches ambulance chasers underprivilaged, yet distinguished legal professionals ('lawyers'), who will milk any pharma organization from a penney of its life as they help ensure their clients become healthy, wealthy, yet not-so-wise. This, of course, can occur should they be able to provide relatively convincing evidence (otherwise known as 'proof') that the medicine in question was manufactured incorrectly. If lawsuits can be avoided, just the foreseeable threat of a single lawsuit can otherwise cause something almost as devistating - a 'Lot Recall' which simply put means a sh*tload of medicine is pulled off the sales shelves and destroyed (usually accomplshed under 'supervision').
    Having said the above, I'll point out one anomaly about *my* experiences with the 'big pharma' industry: from janitor to research analyst to computer scientist to manufacturing professionals to warehouse workers - I have met more people with their doctorate degrees than I have met in the hospital/medical industry. It was absolutely incredible.
    Having said the above, I will advise the cost of operation (including defense of) for 'big pharma' isn't even discussed within all the whining about cost of medicines - and believe me, it is sky high throu.  And yes, the most popular medicines will cost a little more because there is so much overall background noise cost for the organization, including the requirement to make a few people rich so somebody (the 'rich') will invest back into the organization, which makes everyone a little 'richer' (including all those 'Dr. Janitors'), who are really 'needed'.
    Mind you, this discussion did not even begin to touch on little things like the cost of even simple change within a Validated automated manufacturing process or the annual cost of maintaining the desired and very valuable 'CE' designation for global products, much less the designations required for USA sales (such as FDA approval).  
    The 'moral to the story' and the queston of 'greed' in 'big pharma'?
    Required fact of life.
    Live with it or die don't.
    Believe me - you DO want to trust the medicine you are ingesting - especially if it for anything from the neck up.
     
     
    Then there is the 'wonderful world of finance' (which is really very much as shown in 'Mr. Robot')...but I will save that for another dayLOL
     
     
    'Live Free Or Die'? Sure!
    'Don't Tread On Me'? Please don't - I bite. 
    Buuuut..........
    PaWism #4: Nobody owes you a thing and it isn't free to 'live free'.  
    PaWism #21: To succeed, you will probably walk on and over a few - be polite and learn to forgive yourself
     
     


    -------------
    X               <sig.nature>
    "What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


    Posted By: aka ron
    Date Posted: 20 Aug 2016 at 7:26pm
    Originally posted by Donathan Donathan wrote:

    Ron, that list of all the medicines you put that are now in lawsuits is really sad!:(
    Donna, not that we are friends or anything...you missed my sarcasm!
     
    Originally posted by aka ron aka ron wrote:

    Just like Donna...the side effects are often worse than the initial illness. The Rx companies only care about profits. Death, should never be a side effect.
    Just look at all of the class action lawsuits.
     
    I've just decided to not abuse you, until you get out of line again. Tongue


    -------------
    I can't complain but sometimes I still do.


    Posted By: PaWolf
    Date Posted: 20 Aug 2016 at 8:07pm
    ^^^That's o.k....I'll abuse it for awhile.

    -------------
    X               <sig.nature>
    "What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


    Posted By: commercialssuck
    Date Posted: 20 Aug 2016 at 11:42pm
    Originally posted by Anduril Anduril wrote:

    Originally posted by Jimbo Jimbo wrote:

      (snip - in reply to Thor) 

    I think we're still not quite on the same page here.

    You say a corporation ("it") is a non-human entity. I suppose that depends upon how you look at a corporation. If you see a corporation as nothing more than a collection of contractual legalities and words on documents filed with the proper governing authorities, then I suppose that is true. But if you see a corporation as a group of people working together, providing some product or service to people or other businesses, then it is very much a human entity.

    I see it the second way. And when a corporation is involved in something like producing medication, I think it's downright dangerous for the people who run it to not care about the people who use their products. If they don't care about the people who are using their medications, what are the chances that they might try to cut corners, fudge test results, withhold data that might make it harder to get their products approved by the FDA, etc.

    I think that caring about people is of paramount importance in this industry above all others.

     
    If I may...?
     
    I see ALL corporations a third way:  A legal extention, and facilitator of good old fashioned GREED.
     
    Having been a "C-Level" exec in a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ, I can assure you greed knows no boundaries.  The stakeholders (banks, institutional investors, VC's) are there to make money and they often don't need or care to know anything about the business.  Even the ones who say they do, A) only say that about highly successful companies, often when they've have very little to do with said success, or B) only "think" they care or know, when the reality is otherwise.
     
    Seriously:  Greed knows no boundaries.
    That's pretty much all you need to know. 


    Very well said! I would NEVER make the mistake of believing that ANY company or corporation or government (which is essentially a business) has my best interests in mind and will do what is best for me. The consumer must ALWAYS be aware of what is really going on and question everything and NEVER blindly follow along assuming "just cause everyone else is doing it, it must be ok".

    As Anduril said, these people ONLY care about making money/power and we as consumers have to be responsible for our own choices and do research (which nowadays is SOOO easy with the internet) on as much as possible to counter the "brainwashing" we get from TV, which is merely there to sell a product.

    BTW, have any of you done any digging on Gardasil and the controversy surrounding it? I did just a little, and there is enough to make me VERY suspicious and think twice before getting this vaccine.


    Posted By: ALE515
    Date Posted: 22 Aug 2016 at 3:54pm
    I don't like this commercial due to trying to make the parents feel like crap. However, isn't it our Doctors that are supposed to tell us about these things? The hows and whys. Is this commercial implying that our Doctors told us about it and we're ignoring them? My son is only a toddler, but our doctor told us what vaccines are coming up and what they do. I would expect he would continue to tell as my kid grows up.


    Posted By: Redheaded Gigi
    Date Posted: 28 Aug 2016 at 12:58am
    Originally posted by ALE515 ALE515 wrote:

    I don't like this commercial due to trying to make the parents feel like crap. However, isn't it our Doctors that are supposed to tell us about these things? The hows and whys. Is this commercial implying that our Doctors told us about it and we're ignoring them? My son is only a toddler, but our doctor told us what vaccines are coming up and what they do. I would expect he would continue to tell as my kid grows up.

    Many drs. are recommending the Gardasil shots, but some parents are opting out because they see HPV as a sexually transmitted issue rather than a communicable disease like Measles, etc.  The tipping point for me was that HPV causes many oral cancers in men.  My sons' own drs. (pediatrician and specialists) have overwhelmingly recommended the vaccine and have had their own kids vaccinated.  It just irritates me that Merck runs these commercials to shame parents to give kids a vaccine that yields a ton of profits for them.  Like I said earlier, if it was the CDC doing PSAs, I wouldn't feel so irritated by it.


    Posted By: Redheaded Gigi
    Date Posted: 28 Aug 2016 at 1:00am
    Originally posted by the raytownian the raytownian wrote:

    Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

    Expecting Merck to care about our health is like expecting the supermarket to care that we're out of bread and milk.  They're businesses.  They're not there to care; they're there to fulfill a need and to make profits.
     


    See, that's what I'm on about. I don't expect Merck to care, I just feel insulted that they pretend to care. I'd really prefer it if all drug/pharma companies pushed facts and figures to make their points, and not a bunch of manipulative soap opera BS.

    That's exactly what my problem is with this ad.  It isn't as if Merck is really trying to address a public health problem and wants us to vaccinate our kids against HPV for our children's good; they're trying to manipulate parents to make money and they should just be up front about that in the ad.  


    Posted By: Donathan
    Date Posted: 28 Aug 2016 at 3:38am
    Redheaded Gigi, welcome to CIH!:D They would never be so direct with their money grabbing attempt. They would rather take small, insidious, subtle bites of the sandwich(parent's money) rather than huge, obvious, blatant bites of the "sandwich."

    -------------
    My name is Donathan, pronounced the same way you pronounce Jonathan, except with a D. :D $608 for her brother's scooter. Fair is fair my ass. Being tough on Public Access TV is priceless.







    Posted By: Redheaded Gigi
    Date Posted: 28 Aug 2016 at 1:17pm
    Thanks for the welcome, Donathan!  Smile


    Posted By: tikibagger
    Date Posted: 30 Aug 2016 at 12:43am
    wasn't Gardasil pitched initially as a a cervical cancer precautionary shot? So why in heavens name would any parent of a MALE child of the past even have CONSIDERED subjecting them to a Gardasil shot? Thats the tearing point for me on these ads--i get the wide eyed teary female kids, but the boys probably have a less than concrete beef with their 'horrible' parents who doomed them..as a parent in the mid 90s. i recall the Gardasil push for girls but definitely no male kids warnings..am i wrong here?


    -------------
    Baggin the tiki since the 90s


    Posted By: Redheaded Gigi
    Date Posted: 30 Aug 2016 at 1:40am
    The recommendation to vaccinate boys is, from what I understand, two-fold.  Boys can spread HPV, which causes most cervical cancers, so vaccinating boys protects girls from HPV and cervical cancer.  HPV also is implicated in many oral, anal, and penile cancers, which obviously do affect boys and men.


    Posted By: Donathan
    Date Posted: 30 Aug 2016 at 1:59am
    You're welcome, Redheaded Gigi! :D

    -------------
    My name is Donathan, pronounced the same way you pronounce Jonathan, except with a D. :D $608 for her brother's scooter. Fair is fair my ass. Being tough on Public Access TV is priceless.







    Posted By: Papa Lazarou
    Date Posted: 30 Aug 2016 at 3:57am
    Originally posted by Redheaded Gigi Redheaded Gigi wrote:

    The recommendation to vaccinate boys is, from what I understand, two-fold.  Boys can spread HPV, which causes most cervical cancers, so vaccinating boys protects girls from HPV and cervical cancer.  HPV also is implicated in many oral, anal, and penile cancers, which obviously do affect boys and men.
    This.

    Adding to the point of "boys can spread it" this is basically the same reason they recommend even people who "don't get bad flus" still vaccinate,or even people in incredibly low-risk areas for certain diseases still get vaccinated for those.

    Every single person who - even if the infection isn't dangerous for them - is a carrier for something is another chance for that virus to randomly mutate during duplication in a way that can totally change the effectiveness of the vaccine, or the violence with which it infects and affects the victim.

    Like most viruses, a vaccine is only effective if taken BEFORE potential contact with the virus occurs; hence this mentality that, "Oh, but my child isn't going to have sex YET!" is idiotic...then again, to be fair, this IS America, where we have people fighting to ensure the only time kids get access to accurate and functional sex education is about 5 years AFTER the average have started having sex.


    -------------
    Banana!
    BANANA!!
    BANANA!!!
    BANANA!!
    Banana!


    Posted By: Choptank Dawn
    Date Posted: 05 Sep 2016 at 4:13am
    Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

    Expecting Merck to care about our health is like expecting the supermarket to care that we're out of bread and milk.  They're businesses.  They're not there to care; they're there to fulfill a need and to make profits.
     
     

    I couldn't agree more.  As a former employee of Merck, I detest their business practices and can honestly say I have never worked for a more oppressive regime anywhere else to date.   


    Posted By: Anduril
    Date Posted: 05 Sep 2016 at 1:31pm
    Originally posted by Choptank Dawn Choptank Dawn wrote:

    I couldn't agree more.  As a former employee of Merck, I detest their business practices and can honestly say I have never worked for a more oppressive regime anywhere else to date.   
     
    So in other words, you never worked for AT&T ?  Shocked
     
     


    Posted By: Jimbo
    Date Posted: 05 Sep 2016 at 2:38pm
    Originally posted by Choptank Dawn Choptank Dawn wrote:

    Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

    Expecting Merck to care about our health is like expecting the supermarket to care that we're out of bread and milk.  They're businesses.  They're not there to care; they're there to fulfill a need and to make profits.


    I couldn't agree more.  As a former employee of Merck, I detest their business practices and can honestly say I have never worked for a more oppressive regime anywhere else to date.


    That's probably true, but like most of the responses to this subject, it fails to address the point I was trying to make, which is not whether they DO or DON'T "care", but whether they SHOULD or SHOULDN'T care.

    I maintain my original stance that they very much SHOULD care about the people who swallow their overpriced poison, or else get out of health CARE and go into another industry like industrial solvents or something.




    -------------
    Great news guys.... With the Air Hawk, flat balls are no longer a problem!!!


    Posted By: AlexanderCS
    Date Posted: 10 Sep 2016 at 7:41pm
    Yes, the guilt angle is pretty horrid.  I wish I were on the test panel that they sometimes run to gauge the public's reaction, because I would have told them that the parent shaming angle is a horrible way to go.


    Posted By: aka ron
    Date Posted: 12 Jul 2017 at 7:15pm
    Just in case you forgot...there is a deadly disease out there. Mom, dad? You selfish f*ckers!
     


    Posted By: tikibagger
    Date Posted: 13 Jul 2017 at 2:31pm
    get me a shot NOW or my cervix will KEEL ME..that appears to be the overwhelming message on these oh so TOUCHY ads..much like Pantera(Pandera?)s guilt teen and her scolding, puffy allusions that 'clean' food is ALL THAT


    -------------
    Baggin the tiki since the 90s



    Print Page | Close Window

    Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
    Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk