Antivaccine lunatics invent another hero for their cause

This article has been updated and republished. Please visit the new article by clicking here.

Yes, out of the blue, the vaccine denialist cult is going to foist another individual who will trumpet the evils of vaccination. No, it’s not another Jenny McCarthy. Or Alicia Silverstone. Or Mayim Bialik.

No, this is big time. Wait for it. This is really big.

It’s Bernard Dalbergue.

I think I hear chirping crickets out there. No, I had no idea who this dude was, so as a public service, I decided to find out what I could find out.

So who is this Bernard Dalbergue and why is he important to the antivaccinationists? Well, it’s because, as the antivaccination fringe proclaim loudly, Dr. Dalbergue is a “former pharmaceutical industry physician with Gardasil manufacturer Merck.” And he apparently made some nasty comments about Gardasil in the April 2014 issue (pdf, French) in the French anti-science magazine Principes de Santé (Health Principles). 

Source: CDC
Source: CDC

In case you don’t know, Gardasil (or Silgard in Europe) is a HPV quadrivalent vaccine, which is vitally important part of the war against infectious diseases, by preventing the transmission of certain types (pdf), specifically 6, 11, 16, and 18, of the human papillomavirus (HPV). Importantly, HPV types 16 and 18 cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers, and cause most HPV-induced anal (95% linked to HPV), vulvar (50% linked), vaginal (65% linked), oropharyngeal (60% linked) and penile (35% linked) cancers. These HPV-related cancers can be prevented as long as you can prevent the HPV infection itself, which are generally passed through genital contact, most often during vaginal, oral and anal sex.

In that article, Dr. Dalbergue claimed that (translated from French):

The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless! Diane Harper, a major opinion leader in the United States, was one of the first to blow the whistle, pointing out the fraud and scam of it all.

Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune!  In addition, decision-makers at all levels are aware of it!

Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.

I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all times because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers.

There is far too much financial interest for these medicines to be withdrawn.

Uh oh, Diane Harper, that “major opinion leader in the USA” is being compared to Dr. Dalbergue. And in case you don’t know about Dr. Diane Harper, according to a number of vaccine refuseniks (there are numerous websites that repeat the same story, almost verbatim), she decided to “come clean” about Gardasil so that she could “sleep at night.” The antivaccination world have attached themselves to this story, because they think it uncovers a conspiracy or lies by the vaccine manufacturers, and since Dr. Harper obviously escaped from the evil clutches of Big Pharma. The myth of Diane Harper also includes the ridiculous belief that she was the “lead researcher” for Gardasil.

Dr. Dalbergue’s story seems awfully like Dr. Harper’s. Except for the small fact that I can find no evidence that he ever worked for Merck (as opposed to Dr. Harper, who actually did, though not quite in the role she and the antivaccine world claimed). As far as I was able to uncover through sources and background checks, Dr. Dalbergue was the Directeur Medicale (Medical Director) of a drug distributor, Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd. Let’s look at this step by step. Every medical products distributor in the world has a Medical Director, someone who signs off on documentation, occasionally holds pharmacy licenses, and provides advice on medical issues to the partners, principles and executives of the company.

A Medical Director is almost always a critical role in pharmaceutical companies undergoing research and development. Almost every medical or pharmaceutical company must have an MD approve regulatory documents. However, being a Medical Director for a minor pharmaceutical distributor, by itself, lends no credence to a statement that he was deeply involved with Merck. He was not employed by Merck.

Since Martin & Harris was not a primary manufacturer of vaccines, Dr. Dalbergue had little, if any, access to privileged information. As best as I can surmise, Martin & Harris is a defunct distributor of pharmaceuticals from the larger pharmaceutical companies. Just a brief aside in this discussion. Pharmaceutical companies, in general, do not sell directly to hospitals, physicians or pharmacies. Owning and maintaining a huge international distribution network for just a few drugs would be incredibly inefficient and expensive. So, a whole industry of medical products distributors has grown up throughout the world, with the USA having a rather complex system of distribution with separate companies focusing their efforts on either the hospital, physician or retail pharmacy markets (and generally, there is no overlap).

Basically, the distributor gets about 15-30% of the price paid by the hospital for a product. So, if a $40 vaccine is purchased by a physician, the distributor gets around 20% or $8, and the pharmaceutical company around $32. But I’m over simplifying this system because it would be a 50,000 word document to describe the medical distribution system adequately.

The point is that distributors are not owned by the manufactures (actually that’s illegal in the USA), and Big Pharma treats distributors with disdain, sometimes unbridled disgust. Essentially, Big Pharma considers distributors nothing more than truck drivers who take profits away, when in fact, distributors are generally the people who have relationships with the hospitals and physicians. It is a world of love-hate relationships that would surprise most people.

I’m willing to assume that Dr. Dalbergue was a Medical Director for the possibly defunct distributor, because that appears to be public knowledge. But he’s going to have no inside knowledge of what Merck was doing with Gardasil. None at all. The distributor’s truck drivers are going to know as much, and I’m not exaggerating. The information and research at Merck is so highly protected by confidentiality agreements, they wouldn’t pass along data to Dalbergue because he could take that information to GSK, for example. Dr. Dalbergue wouldn’t have any inside knowledge of Merck’s activities, no more or less than I do (though I probably have a LOT more, because of my former life).

A few French speakers have read some of the French language articles about Dr. Dalbergue which has been helpful in understanding better his relationship with Merck. They did indeed acquire Martin & Harris, and terminated all of the executives of the company (something that is typically done, and don’t worry, in these cases, the executives receive substantial payouts), including Dr. Dalbergue. I guess this attempt to denigrate Gardasil is his revenge, because he certainly would have no insider knowledge of the vaccine.

But let’s be clear, unless someone publishes documents disputing what I have written here, I strongly doubt that Dr. Dalbergue had any formal or even informal relationship with Merck. This is simply an invention of a wild imagination.

Furthermore, Dr. Dalbergue’s comments show his absolute lack of knowledge or insight into the safety of HPV vaccines. There is no evidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) being associated with the HPV quadrivalent vaccine. In fact, two massive epidemiological studies, one that included over 300,000 girls, and another with over 500,000, showed no significant major adverse effects after receiving the HPV vaccine. And that includes GBS.

So here we go. The zombie apocalypse of “important Merck researchers” arising out of nowhere to attack Gardasil has travelled to France. Dr. Dalbergue might be a good guy. He may have been misquoted. Maybe he is just another member of the lunatic fringe of vaccine deniers. But there is no evidence that he knows anything more than any of the other antivaccine gang. And there is absolutely no evidence he actually worked for or has any inside knowledge about Merck. And there is plenty of evidence that he knows nothing about Gardasil.

Just another loud mouth without scientific evidence. Apparently, the antivaccination cult is so desperate, it’s inventing titles and pulling unemployed physicians out of the detritus of collapsed distributors to further their cause. But we’ve got Paul Offit, whose rotavirus vaccine will save over 500,000 lives a year. To quote Tony Stark in The Avengers, “we have a Hulk.”

Use the Science-based Vaccine Search Engine.

Key citations:

The Original Skeptical Raptor
Chief Executive Officer at SkepticalRaptor
Lifetime lover of science, especially biomedical research. Spent years in academics, business development, research, and traveling the world shilling for Big Pharma. I love sports, mostly college basketball and football, hockey, and baseball. I enjoy great food and intelligent conversation. And a delicious morning coffee!

88 Replies to “Antivaccine lunatics invent another hero for their cause”

  1. You gotta be kiddin me? You seen these poor girls, their lives and brains destroyed by hpv vaccines (which are uneccessary to start with)…. Just search yourself for guardasil deaths………… I supposed this page is just another receiving funding from big corporations called Pharmaceuticals? So obvious. I truly wonder if people are just so ignorant, or are they truly evil, to not see the obvious.

  2. When you label those who disagree with you as lunatics, it reveals a closed mind on your part and destroys credibility. And we all know there has never been a drug of any kind, released with the blessing of the FDA, that has ever been proven to do more harm than good!

  3. thank you for defending big pharma…we know for a fact that their primary goal is to make people healthy and making money is way way down on their list of priorities…and if not for them how would the human race have survived for thousands of years… OH WAIT

    1. Ad hominem. I’m playing logical fallacy bingo, and you’re helping me win this week’s Big Pharma shill check.

      It’s so amusing that you think you’re so intelligent by pulling something out of your ass and claiming it’s gold. Good for you. Do you need a psychiatrist for your delusions. LOL.

      1. just answer the questions its real simple…is big pharmas main priority making money and has the human race survived thousands of years without vaccines…take your time..by the way you are the very definition of a shill…and an ass too

    2. There is far more money in preventative and cosmetic health care than in disease treatment. Contrary to your statement, Pharma companies have a vested interest in you living a longer, healthier life. ED medications, as an example, represent are a $3b market that is incredibly profitable. Oncology drugs – though the total market size is around $100b – are highly specialized, and incredibly costly to develop and produce.
      Regarding your statement about the human race surviving thousands of years without vaccines: when was the last time you looked at average life expectancy? We live 50+ years longer than our ancestors… you don’t think modern medicine is the reason?

      1. the reason we live longer now is…better nutrition aka food.. cleaner environments…like modern sanitation and clean water which means LESS bacteria…. doctors used to operate on patients WITHOUT even washing their hands…the guy who originally came up with the idea of washing hands before surgery was ostracized by his fellow doctors… oh and you still didn’t answer my questions…

        1. What questions? You made baseless statements. Your assertion is that modern medical breakthroughs – antibiotics, vaccines, insulin – has not contributed to added life expectancy? We should stay in the dark ages of medicine?

          By the way, vaccines, as a market makeup only a tiny fraction of the pharmaceutical market, and are generally less profitable than other categories of pharmaceuticals because of added handling costs, short lives, etc.

          1. how the hell is surviving thousands of years without vaccines baseless? and you still didn’t answer if the drug companies number 1 priority is making money… because it is…if you deny that you are a fool…

            1. The fact that the human race survived is not an argument or evidence of anything – it’s senseless. We also survived without antibiotics for thousands of years (although our predecessors lived much shorter lives because of it); should we get rid of those? And modern sanitation, as you cited – we survived without that too… I guess we don’t really need it either, then? No one is debating that the human race as a whole would continue to survive without vaccines – there would just be fewer of us, and we’d be living shortened lives.

              Vaccines, as part of a group of other major medical breakthroughs, have undeniably increased human longevity. Here is a study that supports this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10559545. There are many, many studies that support this.

              I already acknowledged that drug companies are out to make a profit. Did you not read my initial comment? These same companies make FAR more money manufacturing and selling preventative and cosmetic treatments than they do making drugs to fight diseases. Contrary to the popular assertion that “drug companies want to keep you sick”, the opposite is actually true. Drugs for disease are incredibly costly to develop, test, handle and distribute, and require constant reformulation to fight ever-evolving diseases. Drug companies would much rather produce mass-market drugs for things like ED, male pattern baldness, or anti-aging pharmaceuticals; they’re far more profitable.

            2. I know I’m a little late to the party here, b ut I wanted to respond. I’d have to see some data before I believed your assertion that drug companies make more off of things like boner meds, rather than drugs that treat disease. Chemotherapy drugs are very expensive, for example, but of course, that’s to help offset higher production costs.

              It’s well-known, though, that drug companies and hospitals make a lot more money off of treating disease rather than preventing it through vaccination. A one-night stay in a hospital costs far more than even the most expensive vaccines.

              Johnny Rotten is a fool. Apparently he never heard of the 1918 flu epidemic, which killed 50 – 100 million people; 3-5% of the world’s population. The equivalent today would be up to 350 million people. I’ve done the genealogy on my family going back to the early 1800’s. It’s shocking how many of them died very young.

  4. Have YOU had a daughter affected by this vile vaccine? I was pro-vax and made her undertake the full course of three – I wish I hadn’t!!

    1. Anecdote. Doesn’t mean anything to me.

      My daughters are all brilliant college students after full vaccination. Must be my superior genes. Oh wait. Must be because we don’t believe in anecdotes from random trolls on the internet. 🙂

        1. You must live in some odd passive-aggressive world. That was not sarcasm. I really do have superior genes to you, since my children are brilliant after all their vaccines. Oh wait. Maybe that’s sarcasm.

          Oh fuck it, I don’t give a shit.

  5. All you well meaning people who are commenting here trying to make the blog writer reconsider his ideas… you are wasting your time. This is not a skeptical. Skepticals doubt, question, research, entertain contradictory ideas, debate. This one here is simply A BIG PHARMA MERCENARY paid to crush dissent by any means.

    1. WHAT ABOUT THE JIBS OF PARENTS WHO ARE STANDING UP FOR THEIR RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT IS BEST FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

      1. You fail to understand that this decision has significant externalities. Not paying taxes is the best decision for me personally, but not the best for society – it means everyone else has to pay a little bit more to make up for my selfishness. Your decision not to vaccinate does not affect only your children, but every child around you. What about the other children who cannot vaccinate because of immune deficiencies or allergies? Are you okay risking their lives?

  6. minimizing vaccine injuries! what a horrific thing to do…Big
    pharma has trillions of reasons to lie about vaccine injuries and the
    controlled media is fully complicit- as they have been in endless other
    cases of corporate malfeasance.. only 1-10% of all vaccine injuries
    are ever reported, only a very tiny few of those injuries are processed
    by the NVICP. (The very existence of the NVICP is hidden from the
    general public, which is proof of an agenda to manipulate people.) Yet,
    billions have been quietly paid out to vaccine injured people.
    Therefore, the real estimates of compensation due to vaccine injured
    people is in the trillions of dollars. This article is propaganda as
    it “forgets” to mention this fact.

    1. I can’t find one truth in your comment. Amazing.

      Big Pharma makes less than a couple of percent of their profits from vaccines. But you know what? If they quit selling vaccines, they would make trillions of reasons. So, the real truth is that anti-vaxxers are all pro-Big Pharma trolls trying to increase profits. How do you feel about your moral fortitude?

      NVICP is well known to attorneys as a way to screw the US Government out of money. Don’t worry, if you believe that you have a vaccine injury you can be one of those slime to get that money. Wow, your ethics really are right up there with Republicans.

  7. If there are no serious adverse reactions associated with Gardasil, then why are so many parents and vaccinated girls reporting serious adverse reactions from Gardasil? i.e. at a statistically higher rate than the background noise level of sudden deaths in otherwise healthy teens or chronic disability like Guillain-Barre syndrome, in the complete absence of receiving any other vax to allow for a reasonable washout time of a few years? Can someone clear this mystery up? Didn’t both India and Japan just decide to withdraw support for Gardasil due to ARs? Or are they easily frightened by the rumour mill despite the ‘null hypothesis confirmation’ from your safety papers funded by the company that made the vax?

    e.g. from Japan, “Momoi is one of five men on the government task force leading the investigation of the HPV vaccinations. The task force has heard 1,968 adverse effects and are further investigating 43 of the cases. In the months ahead, the government will be forced to decide to continue withdrawing their support or to go ahead and reinstate their recommendation for the vaccines.”

    They don’t seem to fully accept the large scale safety results produced internally by Merck.

    “The Japanese experience mimics that of Australia where, after the introduction of the Gardasil vaccine, Australia experienced an 85% increase in the rate of reported reactions – a situation noted by the Commonwealth Department of Health in their Annual Report (CDI Vol 32 No 4 2008). In contrast to Japan however, whose government has acted quickly and responsibly to protect the health of its citizens, Australian health authorities have not taken any action to ensure the safety of its young people in regards to these vaccines.”

    “India Suspends Gardasil Program After Four Deaths and Complications in 120 Girls

    Delhi: The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has told Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat to immediately suspend the cervical cancer control vaccination programme for girls. The programme is part of a two-year study to look into the utility of a vaccine in public health programmes and acceptability of Gardasil, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine made by Merck.

    The programme was marred by controversy after four deaths and complications among 120 girls were reported after vaccination. The girls complained of stomach disorders, epilepsy, headaches and early menarche. Women activists fear the vaccine may impact the mental health of girls who have shown no signs of distress so far.”

    I mean, science tells us that the cervical cancer death rate is already very low in countries with screening programs (3 per 100,000 in the US, lower in Europe), 2 of the strains touted by Merck in their vax are almost inconsequential in cervical cancer, and that the full cost of pap smear screening will need to continue regardless. Or is this one of those unpleasant choices only on offer to 3rd world countries: “you can’t afford a pap smear program, so here’s a vax which is a bit dangerous which will have to do instead to offset the higher risk faced by lack of a pap smear program”. Except that this vax is so expensive that it’s unlikely that argument will wash either — if you can afford the vax for your people, you can afford a pap smear program. (It’s a little like going to refugee camps in 3rd world countries with poor health care, sanitation and malnutrition causing high mortality rates from measles and other diseases, offering cheap vaccines and a quick one-off dose of Vit A to help infants survive while doing nothing about malnutrition, world poverty or wars — Hobson’s Choice again.)

    And of course we know that Gardasil may only confer protection against 4 out of 100 HPV strains (40 genital, 18 high risk oncogenic) for 5-7 years, assuming the vax takes at all with 3 difficult to deliver shots, and in practice it will of course take 10-20 years of community programs to measure its effectiveness as that’s how long it takes a typical HPV cancer to get underway. This might imply multiple booster shots for all women (effective only against 4 strains — but if you have other strains, the boosters may well be ineffective, as the vax has found not to work in ppl already infected with HPV, so receiving a booster after being exposed to one of the 36 other strains in your life may mean the booster simply won’t work.) If the program needs boosters every 5 years just to be effective, and other contracted strains stop if from working, then of course the entire vax concept is ‘illogical’ to begin with, i.e. it can’t and won’t even work and all the money has been wasted and gone into others’ pockets with no value being provided. Further to the difference between ‘overall community effectiveness’ of a program vs its assumed ‘individual efficacy’, condoms work better to prevent the spread of gHPV than anything else — and there is also a concern that the use of Gardasil or Cevarix will have the opposite effect of causing an uptick in other STIs as young and not entirely intelligent girls may have a sense of invulnerability from receiving the HPV vax.

    Fom another source:
    “Many women are not aware that the HPV vaccine Gardasil might actually increase your risk of cervical cancer. Initially, that information came straight from Merck and was presented to the FDA prior to approval. According to Merck’s own research, if you have been exposed to HPV strains 16 or 18 prior to receipt of Gardasil vaccine, you could increase your risk of precancerous lesions, or worse, by 44.6 percent.

    Other health problems associated with Gardasil vaccine include immune-based inflammatory neurodegenerative disorders, suggesting that something is causing the immune system to overreact in a detrimental way—sometimes fatally.

    – Between June 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008, there were 12,424 reported adverse events following Gardasil vaccination, including 32 deaths. The girls, who were on average 18 years old, died within two to 405 days after their last Gardasil injection
    – Between May 2009 and September 2010, 16 additional deaths after Gardasil vaccination were reported. For that timeframe, there were also 789 reports of “serious” Gardasil adverse reactions, including 213 cases of permanent disability and 25 diagnosed cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome
    – Between September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2011, another 26 deaths were reported following HPV vaccination
    – As of May 13, 2013, VAERS had received 29,686 reports of adverse events following HPV vaccinations, including 136 reports of death,7, as well as 922 reports of disability, and 550 life-threatening adverse events”

    Apparently the CDC study of the first 32 deaths mentioned has written off all of them as attributable to something else.

    I also understand it seems to either cause systemic HPV infections in some recipients, or somehow make pre-existing infections flare up and become worse.

    Here’s a few references pointing to concerns, not hyperlinked:

    Japanese References:

    Cervix vaccine issues trigger health notice

    Japan not to promote cervical cancer vaccination

    Other nations suspend HPV vaccines:

    India Suspends Gardasil Program After Four Deaths and Complications in 120 Girls

    Spain suspends batch of Gardasil following illness

    Experts question HPV vaccination:

    Experts cast doubt on claim for ‘wonder’ cancer jabs

    Call to review cancer vaccine after Germany demands more medical proof

    HPV Vaccine Questions Cannot Be Answered Without Further Research

    Just wondering what the science of relative risk can tell us here between risks of ARs vs the risks of the wild disease……..

    1. Because Americans are weakling who need to blame everyone.Guillain Barre has nothing to do with Gardasil, but if you actually had the brains to research this with an open mind, which you do not have, you’d know that.

      Basically Sean you’re a pretend intellect who throws around bullshit new age propaganda and post-modernism, but hasn’t a clue as to what real science is. In your closed mind, establish an a priori conclusion then hunting down every nonsense source to support is your thing.

      For me, that’s just lazy crap pushed by a pseudoscience loving internet troll. Enjoy yourself.

    2. You rattle off a bunch of assertions there. Care to cite your sources on what you are asserting? I prefer to research information in stead of just taking what someone says at face value.

  8. Why is the voice of self-satisfied ignorance always so strident? What an embarrassingly cringe-making post.

    “Be aware that homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors, and other
    pseudoscience based woo-meisters are simply not knowledgeable about real
    diagnostic and treatment options, and should always be ignored.”

    Where do I start..?

    Nearly 800,000 Americans die each year at the hands of
    government-sanctioned medicine. Vioxx, prescribed by “evidence-based medicine” killed over 60,000 Americans – more than the Vietnam War.

    Your views are worse than inconsequential, worse than naive, ill-informed and arrogant. They are dangerous.

    1. Wow that number keeps growing. Yet it has 0 basis in fact.

      Vioxx killed 60,000 Americans? Huh, that news must have been suppressed by Merck.

      You have nothing but lies. But see, homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors, and acupuncturists rely on misinformation, ignorance and lies because nothing they do helps a single human being.

      Vaccines prevent disease. Probably saves millions of lives a year.

      Insulin, made by Big Pharma, saves 1 million American lives.

      Cancer treatments, many of which were invented by Big Pharma has increased lifespans of those afflicted.

      Get your lies out of here. You might think you know something, but you just want humans dead from your lies. I loathe your types.

      1. YOU ARE FULL OF IT! Cannabanoid Oil cures Cancer,,chemo kills! Just ask my 28 yr old neice who’s organs were destroyed by chemo when she was 7. Now on heart transplant list. Big Pharma as well as many other greedy bastards don’t want anyone healthy! No money in that. You are either a part of it or incredibly uninformed. Or maybe you have an agenda to push.
        I LOATHE your types

        1. Sorry about your niece. However, there isn’t enough evidence to support the assertion that “Cannabanoid Oil cures Cancer”. Sorry but it just isn’t there yet. There are some intrigue results shown with research. There is also evidence that cannabinoids may also have undesirable effects on cancer. There are still many unanswered questions with Cannabanoid Oil to treat cancer. Unfortunately, chemo is the most effective treatment for cancer in many case.

          Just because you don’t agree with someone and have a hatred of “Big Pharma”, doesn’t mean that they are “part of it” or that they are pushing an agenda. There are many people that look at the evidence for things and make determinations about it. Right now the anit-vax movement has little in the way of actual scientific support to back it up and as such is a big threat to the public health and a source of undo fear on the public.

            1. That’s not science. That’s a bunch of self-promoting videos.

              Real science is published in real journals subject to real analysis. Cannabinoid oils do nothing. But if you want to make an extraordinary claim, then you better bring extraordinary evidence, not a lame bunch of videos, which count for crap.

          1. the so called cure kills, more people die from these harsh *cures* than cancer itself. To say *soory but it just isn’t there yet* shows me you are merely a sheep following the sheep programs. here’s some links that perhaps will open your eyes up a bit more. I mean no disrespect but when I see comments so blatantly wrong it really gets to me. Lets start with these , then I can post all the lawsuits settled with big pharma and their vaccines that have caused so much harm, and the proof of that as well.

            Here’s 121 studies proving Cannabinoids (THC & CBD) KILL CANCER cells.
            Cannabis kills Tumor cells:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1576089
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20090845
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/616322
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14640910
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19480992
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15275820
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15638794
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818650
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20307616
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16616335
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16624285
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10700234
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17675107
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14617682
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17342320
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16893424
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328
            Cannabis Cures Colorectal Cancer:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22231745
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17583570
            Cannabis Cures Uterine, Testicular, and Pancreatic Cancers:
            http://www.cancer.gov/…/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
            Cannabis-derived substances in cancer therapy and anti-tumour properties:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20925645
            Cannabis Cures Brain Cancer:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11479216
            Cannabis Cures Mouth and Throat Cancer:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734
            Cannabis Cures Breast Cancer:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20859676
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025276
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21915267
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776349
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454173
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16728591
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9653194
            Cannabis Cures Lung Cancer:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25069049
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198381?dopt=Abstract
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21097714?dopt=Abstract
            Cannabis Cures Prostate Cancer:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746841?dopt=Abstract
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339795/
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22594963
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15753356
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10570948
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690545
            Cannabis Cures Blood Cancer:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12091357
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908594
            Cannabis Cures Skin Cancer:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19608284
            Cannabis Cures Liver Cancer:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475304
            Cannabis Cures Cancer in General:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514108
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20053780
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18199524
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589225
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182964
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442435
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12723496
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16250836
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17237277
            Cannabinoids in intestinal inflammation and cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442536...
            Cannabis use and cancer of the head and neck: Case-control study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2277494
            Cannabis THC at high doses in area, inhibits cholangiocarcinoma cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793...
            Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21115947
            Marijuana kills cancer cells:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16835997
            http://cancer.gov/…/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
            Cannabis Treatment in Leukemia:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15978942
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16754784
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15454482
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16139274
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692532
            Cannabinoids and the immune system:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11854771
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12052046
            Cannabis partially/fully induced cell death in Cancer:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12130702
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19457575
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615640
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17931597
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18438336
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18387516
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15453094
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19229996
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771884
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339876
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12133838
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596790
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11269508
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15958274
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425170
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202146
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11903061
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15451022
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20336665
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19394652
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11106791
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189659
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16500647
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539619
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19059457
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16909207
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18088200
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10913156
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18354058
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189054
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934890
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16571653
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19889794
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15361550
            Cannabis treatment of translocation-positive rhabdomyosarcoma:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19509271
            Cannabis Induces apoptosis of uterine cervix cancer cells:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047233
            Cannabis treatment in lymphoma:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18546271
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16936228
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16337199
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19609004
            Cannabis kills cancer cells:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818634
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648025
            Cannabis regulator of Neural Cell Development
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16787257
            Cannabis treatment of Melanoma:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065222
            Cannabis treatment for Thyroid Carcinoma
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18197164
            Cannabis treatment in Colon Cancer:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18938775
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19047095
            Cannabinoids in intestinal inflammation and cancer.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442536
            Cannabinoids in health and disease:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18286801
            Cannabis a neuroprotective after brain injury
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11586361
            Cannabis inhibits Cancer Cell Invasion:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19914218

            1. Virtually all the scientific research that has been done investigating whether cannabinoids can treat cancer has been done using either cell cultures (cancer cells grown in a dish in a lab) or in animal models. Virtually all the papers you quote fall into these catagories. Whilst these studies have undoubtedly produced interesting information, you have to be really cautious in extrapolating results from cell cultures and animals up to real life patients, who tend to be a lot more complex than a Petri dish or a mouse. Most chemicals that show promise in lab or animal experiments turn out not to work as well as hoped when tested in patients.

              In addition to those studies you quote showing that cannabis or cannabinoids may show an effect on cancer cells in a dish, there is a flip side. Some researchers have found that although high doses of THC can kill cancer cells, they also harm crucial blood vessel cells (Blázquez et al, FASEB J. 2003 Mar;17(3):529-31. Epub 2003), and they can actually encourage cancer cells to grow (Hart et al, Cancer Res. 2004 Mar 15;64(6):1943-50). Other researchers have discovered that activating cannabinoid receptors may interfere with the ability of the immune system to recognise and destroy cancer cells (McKallip RJ. J Immunol. 2005 Mar 15;174(6):3281-9)

              So the picture coming out of cell culture and animal research is far from clear about the benefits.

              When it comes to clinical research – actual trials in patients, the evidence is lacking. There’s only been 1 clinical trial involving cannabinoids that has been published. It involved 9 patients with an aggressive form of brain tumour. All the patients died within a year – as could be expected with this type of cancer. BUT as this was an early stage trial, with no control group, it’s impossible to say whether THC helped to extend their lives. It did demonstrate that giving THC in the purified state this study did THC is safe and didn’t seem to cause significant side effects. All this trial really showsis that there may be some merit in pursuingclinical trials of cannabinoids in future.

              So there we have it. Lab evidence that is far from conclusive and no clinical trial evidence to back up claims that cannabis or its derivatives can cure cancer.

              (If you’re interested in a summary of the current status of research regarding cannabis and cannabinoids in cancer treatment, Cancer Research do an excellent and frequently updated blog:

              Cancer Research UK: Cannabis, cannabinoids and cancer – the evidence so far
              http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/)

            2. Have you ever heard of Rick Simpson? I may have given you links concerning Lab evidence but I prefer evidence from those that have done it. Perhaps you might consider that there’s more to this *story* than you realize. http://phoenixtears.ca/

        2. Sorry to hear about your niece. Big Pharma actually makes more money off of healthy people in the long run; that evidence is very clear that cosmetics and preventative treatments make far more money than fighting disease. That said, there are still thousands of researchers working on a cure for cancer and better treatments – it’s just a very, very complex disease.

          It’s no secret that chemo is a horrendous treatment, but it is still one of the most effective weapons we have in consistently treating cancer, where the alternative is death. Presumably, should we have otherwise died at 7 without treatment?

      2. I was under the impression that Vioxx caused premature heart failure in an estimated 50,000 Americans before it was withdrawn. GPs were reporting their patients were dying. If it wasn’t at all dangerous, and Merck didn’t fake its safety results, then why were the Cox-2 inhibitors promptly withdrawn from the market, including Vioxx and Celebrex, never to return? What are your alternative estimates?

        Where is the logic and science in your reply above, also, ‘skeptical raptor’? I’m a scientist with studies in immunology and epidemiology, and I don’t respond to genuine enquiries and in fact what looks like genuine scientific skepticism in your non-scientific manner. The manufacture of a simple compound like insulin has nothing to do with vaccine development, so that’s a red herring. Cancer treatments actually have not changed appreciably in over 30 years, they are still basically chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and the cancer riddle is far from being cracked still despite all the money that’s gone into research. But once again, cancer research is not the same as vaccine development.

        So that’s two false arguments by association, or a ‘halo effect’ attempt. Not good science at all. Then followed up by an emotive dismissal that really does not address the posters’ doubts and scepticism about the claims of pharmaceutical companies or buried adverse reactions to the wonder drugs.

        1. And clearly Peter you do not care about either the rights of children not to catch dangerous infectious diseases, the rights of those with weakened immune systems (e.g. transplant patients on immunosuppressants) not to be put at risk by the unvaccinated progeny of anti-vax zealots, and definately don’t care about the rights of the rest of society not to have epidemics sweeping the country.

  9. I’m curious. What if anything would be acceptable to disprove one vaccine? From what I can see this *one vaccine* is under question. Not 2 vaccines, not the entirety of the body research of on every vaccine ever issued, published, produced, etc., just this one single vaccine. The author claims that it is ineffective and given that it is a vaccine it carries risk (note: ALL vaccines carry some risks and side effects).

    So the “reasoned” response to this is “OH MY GOD THEY ARE BRINGING BACK POLIO!!! LIGHT THE TORCHES AND KILL THEM ALL!!!! HERETICS!!!! EVIL!!!! EVIL!!!!!

    This *one* vaccine is being questioned with this study. Not the shot for polio, or small pox, or tetanus, this one HPV shot. They are saying it is ineffective and the industry people new it and promoted it anyway to make money. Making money is a very good reason to push a product and companies have stretched the truth about the effectiveness and concealed obvious risks for many many years about many different medicines and products. Why is it wrong to question this one? Why is questioning a single vaccine, yes ANY single vaccine tantamount to every moron out there saying that anyone who does so believes we should throw away all vaccines and move back into caves? Shouldn’t this be settled with actual human trials and testing so as to weigh risk vs. reward? Is blind acceptance of anything big company inc. decides to put into that needle the only acceptable correct way of thinking permissable for you idiots?

    1. He’s skeptical, so he firmly believe in the goodness of all vaccines (brought to you by pharma corporations). As a skeptic, he’s also convinced that anyone who might have something against even a single vaccine is a brainwashed evil asshole cult member.

      Skeptics gonna skeptic, you know.

      1. Brilliant deduction. Brilliant ad hominem and strawman argument. And damn, you went full Big Pharma shill.

        here’s the thing. If you don’t have one tiny piece of evidence, and you don’t, you go for the logical fallacy. Do you feel good about yourself?

        1. Repent, ye unbelievers in the God of Science!
          Praise his son, Logic! Worship his spirit, Evidence!
          Lest the Devil named Logical Fallacy will smite thee.

        2. S.R. – you answered the easy question no answer the hard one… Has the HPV vaccine been through human testing trials that compared tangible outcomes against a placebo group? No, this hasn’t been done because why? Why is this acceptable for other types of medication but not for this vaccine? Now there are serious questions that compare the rates of actual cervical cancer numbers in 2003 and 2012 and those numbers have gone UP not down and this is with the vaccine in wide distribution.

          I am sure you can explain away the *increase* in the incidence of HPV cervical cancer with the same logic of the anti-elephant stampede totem (Gosh! If you didn’t have THIS TOTEM to protect you against elephant stampedes last nights elephant stampede would have been much MUCH worse! Buy another!).

          But you can use such a method to prove anything. Shouldn’t rates be going down not up? And again why no human trials for vaccines with placebo groups? How do you compare via the scientific method actual risk vs. reward without this?

            1. In the blinded human studies, apparently the placebo chosen was the full vaccine with adjuvants minus just the pathogen itself, rather than, for instance, something known to be completely safe like saline solution or similar. This is a new trick of the pharmaceutical companies, and to a scientist or just about anyone it should be an obvious one, arousing great suspicion — why would you make a placebo a concoction of all the adjuvants you intend to use — UNLESS you thought there was a safety problem with them that you wanted to cover up. Clearly this is a deep flaw in the safety trials and all such trials conducted with this approach, and it is bad science. You would need to add a new placebo involving a more or less known to be completely harmless and inert substance to be jabbed to make the trials legitimate — it is just possible to re-analyse the existing data on that footing, I suppose, although the temporal aspect will be violated and some study protocol bureaucrat would complain — but then neither the CDC nor Merck has any reason to want to do a genuine safety trial, now do they?

            2. Complete and utter bullshit. The vaccines have been proven in study after study to be completely safe. And people like you are the cause of the illness and death of thousands. As someone who nearly died from Measles before we had the luxury of vaccines, and had friends and relations who were mained for life or died from Polio, I can say that the world is better with vaccines. With any luck, governments will make vaccines compulsory for any child that there is not a valud medical reason not to.

              You are ignorant and promoting misery and death.

            3. So I’m ignorant, am I? Why don’t you substantiate your ‘study after study’ remark with a list of these studies and their sponsors? Given there’s plenty of ongoing studies questioning it — being undertaken in the community after the thing has already been rolled out rather than in the Phase I-III trials where they should have been conducted.

              You are also conflating the effects of a polio vaccine with measles and with HPV, all different diseases with different risks, different vaxes, and different risks with the vaxes.

              This is the halo effect again — one safe or unsafe vax which may be effective against a serious disease does not make all vaxes safe or effective by implication, you’re an idiot if you believe that — which apparently you do.

              It’s possible to unpack the rhetoric and propaganda around all of measles, polio and HPV and the respective safety and efficacy of all 3 vaxes. You claim to have nearly died of measles — and yet the measles death rate is less than 1 in 100,000 cases, and has been so since the 1960s. And here you are, not maimed, not dead, but immune to measles for life. Everyone I know my age caught measles, I personally have never heard about a death or even a disability in my cohort from it. However, the MMR vax adverse reaction and death rate appears to be considerably higher on a truly scientific investigation of the epidemics of ARs and late onset infantile regressive autism occurring immediately after a vax event.

              India is still handing out the live virus oral polio vaccine — and there are now over 50,000 cases of ‘non-polio’ flaccid paralysis in the children treated in the program. Further, 95% of people don’t even know they’ve contracted polio, 5% will have symptoms similar ot a cold, and of those a few will contact paralysis. In fact, 5% will get symptoms, and in children 0.5% of those may become paralysed, representing 0.025% of all cases. Polio was largely spread by poor sanitation and urban crowding — sanitation (clean water, sewerage, washing hands, quarantine of cases) was greatly improving in the West by the 1940s and 50s as a response to a number of diseases in the light of ‘germ theory’, bringing down the rate of cases and serious cases dramatically and exponentially, before the vax was developed — this being a non-invasive public health intervention, i.e. you cannot die or be maimed from improving the quality of drinking water or adding proper sewerage and observing better personal hygiene.

              And we’ve covered HPV previously.

              So hardly very scientific or thoughtful of you, is it? And yet you hector and castigate others about your unconsidered views.

              You can be as stupid and unscientific and unresearched as you like, just don’t parade it so blatantly in public and attempt to debate your uninformed and thoughtless views.

          1. erm, you’ve committed several errors of logic and forms of illegitimate argumentation yourself on this thread, and presumably many others, ‘skeptical raptor’. Double standards much?

          2. Numerous human trials are conducted before any drug or vaccine hits the market; it’s a fairly rigorous process.

            However, a controlled double-blind study for vaccine effectiveness is highly unethical, as anyone with basic scientific knowledge would readily understand. You would have to expose each group to the virus, and observe who contracted it… Or, you could conduct a long-term study, in which half of the group believes they are immune to a virus, and makes sexual decisions based on that false belief… Both are incredibly unethical.

            There have never been double-blind studies on the effectiveness of child’s car seats, as an example, either… but they undoubtedly save lives. Instead, we use statistical evidence to infer the effectiveness and/or safety of these kinds of interventions.

            Why have cervical cancer rates continued to rise? Because they are not vaccinating the entire population, and the penetration rate of the vaccine is still low, even amongst the target populations:
            “Since the approval of Gardasil in 2006 and despite low vaccine uptake, prevalence of HPV among teenagers aged 14–19 has been cut in half with an 88% reduction among vaccinated women. No decline in prevalence was observed in other age groups, indicating the vaccine to have been responsible for the sharp decline in cases. The drop in number of infections is expected to in turn lead to a decline in cervical and other HPV-related cancers in the future.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccines#Vaccine_implementation

    2. Hmmm, seems you have a bit of a double standard, Remo.

      Between your address of “you idiots”, and your bringing into the conversation as if it was relevant someone’s hysterical all-caps ranting about bringing back polio, it seems clear that you aren’t holding Skeptical Raptor responsible for what HE says, but rather for what gets said by ANYONE who shares his pro-vaccine views (including almost certainly imaginary pro-vaccine people – although if you can present us with evidence of a pro-vaccine person ACTUALLY advocating “light the torches and kill them all” in reference to anti-vaxers, please, feel free to produce the evidence.)

      But at the same time, you say “only *this one* vaccine is under question”, as if somehow THIS set of accusations from a dubious source against a vaccine were somehow SEPARATE from any other accusations made against any other vaccines, INCLUDING those trumpeted by the very same people who are now trumpeting Dalberge’s “study” (exactly how is it a “study”, BTW?)

      But let’s set aside for the moment the hypocrisy of your stance. One may well ask, “isn’t it right that a claim should be accepted, or dismissed, based on its own merits, rather than how previous claims of that nature have panned out?” And the answer is in fact “Yes.” Yes, ultimately each claim must be judged on its own merits.

      But only a fool would try to tell us that we MUST NOT learn from experience about which claims are apt to be substantiated and which are not. “Well, we’ve had someone run into the village square crying ‘Wolf! Wolf!’ each of the past 582 days. Each and every time we went out to investigate. On none of these occasions did we ever find evidence which suggested the actual presence of a wolf within the past twenty-four hours. So I’m guessing that today’s ‘wolf’ isn’t actually a wolf eith-” “YOU IDIOTS! This is only *one wolf sighting* we’re talking about! Those other 582 times have no relevance! Your skepticism that THIS sighting will turn out to be a real actual wolf just shows you’re a bad person who doesn’t take wolves seriously enough!”

  10. As soon as you can post a study that is NOT funded by the pharmaceutical companies that produce them, I will believe your post BUT not until then.

    1. Thelma, I can do whatever I want. I’m not going listen to random lunatics and psychopaths on the internet.

      I know you will sell out for $20, but most people I know couldn’t be swayed by millions of dollars from Big Pharma. I get swayed by evidence and scientific facts.

      It doesn’t matter what I present to you. You’re so close-minded, it would take a crowbar to pry open your anti-scientific lunacy.

      1. Your claims seem highly unlikely, ‘skeptical raptor’, the more I read about your devotion to ‘evidence and facts’ constructed by moneyed vested interests. Postmodernism of course tells us there are no such ‘facts’, just social constructions of convenience, and absolute scientific rigour is a rarity when vast sums of money are at stake as is so often the case in the world of medicine. Not sure how you know an anonymous random guest will ‘sell out for $20’ either? Another form of illegitimate argumentation?

        1. Post modernism is bullshit. I know how people sell out because they apply their moral standards to me and others. Frankly, if Big Pharma dropped $10 million on this website, guess what–I’d still call you a big fat dumb fuck.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.