or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine - Page 3

post #81 of 260
Chris, I am researching vaccination developement costs but it is taking more time than I expected. Hopefully I will be able to get something together in a few days.
post #82 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Chris, I am researching vaccination developement costs but it is taking more time than I expected. Hopefully I will be able to get something together in a few days.

I Googled this a bit yesterday. I cam across something that suggested the average R&D + marketing + etc. costs of a single vaccine are around $800M. Have no idea how "good" this number is.
post #83 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I Googled this a bit yesterday. I cam across something that suggested the average R&D + marketing + etc. costs of a single vaccine are around $800M. Have no idea how "good" this number is.

Show the link, if you don't mind. I've been to cdc and nih and I can't come up with cost for a single vaccine. Have seen yearly overall budget, about 1.4 billion, but no cost of a single vaccine from idea to testing to market. I think this number would be interesting. The number you quote does not look unbeleivable to me. Probably about right at first glance.
post #84 of 260
Quote:
Originally insinuated in a post by Chris Cuilla
Dishonesty is the same thing as death

you make a very convincing argument, Chris. you're right. those fuckers out there, they should die, because, afterall, cheating on a test is wrong.
post #85 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Show the link, if you don't mind. I've been to cdc and nih and I can't come up with cost for a single vaccine. Have seen yearly overall budget, about 1.4 billion, but no cost of a single vaccine from idea to testing to market. I think this number would be interesting. The number you quote does not look unbeleivable to me. Probably about right at first glance.

Here is one:

http://www.hooverdigest.org/022/miller.html

( indicates an average cost of $802M including 12-15 years of work )

If read enough about this, you'll also begin to see why there might an incentive to have the government force its citizens to be vaccinated. This isn't strictly a public health issue but an economics one as well. If you have spent 1/2-to-a-billion dollars on something, you'd love nothing more than to have the government force everyone to use it. Perferrably paid for by the government too (which may have helped pay for the development to begin with through various subsidies, tax credits, breaks, etc.).
post #86 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
you make a very convincing argument, Chris. you're right. those fuckers out there, they should die, because, afterall, cheating on a test is wrong.

Ummm...where is the quote from?
post #87 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I understand that. However, I notice this reasoning doesn't (as far as I know anyway) get applied to anything else. So let's try it with one to see how it sounds:

The problem I have with this anology is that there is not an innate drive to cheat on tests. Abstinence is the suppression of the innate sex drive. Some are better at it than others.
post #88 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
The problem I have with this anology is that there is not an innate drive to cheat on tests. Abstinence is the suppression of the innate sex drive. Some are better at it than others.

So you are saying we (or at least some) have no ability for self-control?
post #89 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Chris does have a valid issue here as many vaccinations are required before children can enter public and private school.

A big point being overlooked is that this (abstinence vs. vaccination) isn't an either or proposition. Both can and should be practiced together.

I would be for HPV vaccination as a part of the childhood schedule but leave it elective and not require it for school admission. This is how Hep B is currently practiced.

The government has no real control on admitance practices of private institutions, they can say that for public health concerns children should get vaccinated for diseases passed by sneezing (or contact which is explicitly expected in certain circumstances -- hugging or play fighting...). This only really becomes an issue after the age of consent, 18, where students at universities may be told to get a vaccine for a disease which is expressly passed through sexual contact.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #90 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Here is one:

http://www.hooverdigest.org/022/miller.html

( indicates an average cost of $802M including 12-15 years of work )

If read enough about this, you'll also begin to see why there might an incentive to have the government force its citizens to be vaccinated. This isn't strictly a public health issue but an economics one as well. If you have spent 1/2-to-a-billion dollars on something, you'd love nothing more than to have the government force everyone to use it. Perferrably paid for by the government too (which may have helped pay for the development to begin with through various subsidies, tax credits, breaks, etc.).

Now you are getting into a grey area. A lot of private companies or research institutions develop vaccines, far more private companies produce vaccines. The government has a great deal of outlay in research costs on vaccines that may not be the best bet financially for pharma (no vaccine is a sound investment for pharma, you wipe out the disease and after a while (short, long?) you can't sell your vaccine any longer).

The government provides funding for a lot of research that never sees the light of human application, if you believe that the government could or would force people to use remote controlled bees or gas powered exoskeletons, you are far more naive than I thought...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #91 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So you are saying we (or at least some) have no ability for self-control?

Why exhibit this form of self control in the first place? Oh yeah, it makes baby jesus cry.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #92 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Why exhibit this form of self control in the first place? Oh yeah, it makes baby jesus cry.

Strike two. Click. Ignore. Done.
post #93 of 260
Well following this logic it's seems obvious that :

- we should not vaccine people from B hepatitis
- we shoud not vaccine people with a future aids vaccine
- we should not cure people against sexual illness : it's a punition against low moral standarts (moral standarts edicted by flawless people ...)

This is stupid beyond words. When you are a doctor or someone involved in public health, you have to find the better way to promote health.

Last word. Vaccination do not prevent any people to practice abstinence, to wear condoms or anything else.
You don't teach supposed high moral standarts, by the fear of terrible illness. If I don't stole goods, it's not by the fear to be catched, it's because I think it's bad.
post #94 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Well following this logic it's seems obvious that :

- we should not vaccine people from B hepatitis
- we shoud not vaccine people with a future aids vaccine
- we should not cure people against sexual illness : it's a punition against low moral standarts (moral standarts edicted by flawless people ...)

This is stupid beyond words. When you are a doctor or someone involved in public health, you have to find the better way to promote health.

Last word. Vaccination do not prevent any people to practice abstinence, to wear condoms or anything else.
You don't teach supposed high moral standarts, by the fear of terrible illness.

Amen my brother from a French mother.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #95 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So you are saying we (or at least some) have no ability for self-control?

Of course not. But self control varies from person to person and activity to activity. Most people have the self control not to harm themselves. Many have self control not to harm others. There is no innate drive to do these activities. Self control with eating.. Now there are plenty of people who are lacking in this area. Sex is similar. The innate sex drive is difficult for some to control.

Getting back on topic, 50% of women are infected with hpv according to the Jordan report. Vaccination should be promoted and it should be included in the childhood immunization schedule. If a parent wishes not to vaccinate their child so be it. But from a public health standpoint this is sound policy. Link below to Jordan report which is a comprehensive review vaccination.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/dev/default.htm
post #96 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The government has no real control on admitance practices of private institutions, they can say that for public health concerns children should get vaccinated for diseases passed by sneezing (or contact which is explicitly expected in certain circumstances -- hugging or play fighting...). This only really becomes an issue after the age of consent, 18, where students at universities may be told to get a vaccine for a disease which is expressly passed through sexual contact.

In my state, my child attends a parochial school. In order to attend they MUST be up to date on their childhood immunizations. If one is home schooled then they can aviod this, otherwise not.
post #97 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
In my state, my child attends a parochial school. In order to attend they MUST be up to date on their childhood immunizations. If one is home schooled then they can aviod this, otherwise not.

At some level this makes sense -- the child's vaccines are for diseases that any normal childhood school activity can lead to. Students should not be engaging in, say, sexual activity during school hours in high schools -- they do, but there are rules against such things, and they ARE enforced. Once the child leaves the school, they are the responsibility of their parents and their activities and communication of diseases in those contexts are completely not in the purview or juristiction of the schools....
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #98 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So you are saying we (or at least some) have no ability for self-control?

Isn't it strange that denying oneself from Sex, is a very good way to induce mental anxiety and stress, because abstenance is an unnatural state for virtually all humans that have gone through puberty to be in. And of course the best way to cope with this self inflicted mental problem is to teach them the words of Jesus the Sun God.

Which is probably the reason, "Apollonius of Tyana", um... i mean "St Paul" teaches that it is better if a man and a woman do not come together. It is to put you in a state of mental anguish so that it makes you more receptive to evangelize the words of Orpheus, um... I mean Jesus- to.

Of course, in todays psychology, this would be known as grooming and brainwashing.
post #99 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Ummm...where is the quote from?

i figured it'd be quicker to make a summary of your quote than to c+p the original.
post #100 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
i figured it'd be quicker to make a summary of your quote than to c+p the original.

First, not it isn't.
Second, it is diliberately mis-quoting and mis-leading me...lying in other words.

Stop it.

Edit your post to correct it.
post #101 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
First, not it isn't.
Second, it is diliberately mis-quoting and mis-leading me...lying in other words.

Stop it.

Edit your post to correct it.

i said (now i'm goign to re-write using slightly different words) that abstinence is not a solution because it won't be practiced.

you responded and, seemingly, attempted to make an allegory twixt the current thread topic and cheating on a test.

i presented my (apparently flawed) interpretation of your response in a concise manner, combined with my own sarcastic comments.
post #102 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
i presented my (apparently flawed) interpretation of your response in a concise manner, combined with my own sarcastic comments.

You outright (and deliberately) misquoted me. If you want to misinterpret what I've said (which you did) fine. But DO NOT DELIBERATELY MISQUOTE ME.
post #103 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You outright (and deliberately) misquoted me. If you want to misinterpret what I've said (which you did) fine. But DO DELIBERATELY MISQUOTE ME.

Don't mind if I do.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #104 of 260
I don't really get the opposition to it. Is it really so hard for the fundies to let the kids get vaccinated and still bombard them the whole abstinence campaign? The two aren't incompatible.

Then again, considering all of the other wierd stuff some of these guys believe, adding "this shot will make teen sex skyrocket" to the list is no shocker.
post #105 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I don't really get the opposition to it.

Well, from an article I posted (mid-thread) it seems that the opposition is about having it be mandatory...not the outright approval of it. I have been unable to find anything in my Googling around to say that vaccine itself is opposed. So this thread starter was a bit of a red herring to begin with.
post #106 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You can stop your ranting.

This isn't about "archaic values". It is a simply deductive conclusion based on medical/scientific evidence. Cervical cancer is essentially an STD. Practicing abstinence is the most effective means of avoiding STDs. What is so hard to understand about that?

It's not hard to understand, it's that getting people to stop fornicating is a pie in the sky, unrealistic goal.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #107 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, from an article I posted (mid-thread) it seems that the opposition is about having it be mandatory...not the outright approval of it. I have been unable to find anything in my Googling around to say that vaccine itself is opposed. So this thread starter was a bit of a red herring to begin with.

Chris ever heard the term " Spitting in the wind "?

Religious concerns have no place in this decision. Don't make it maditory but make it available now.

Next.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #108 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Chris ever heard the term " Spitting in the wind "?

Oh yes. It describes the efforts of trying to get most folks here on PO to think reasonably, logically, rationally and avoid reverting to stupid comments. To wit...

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Religion has no place in this argument.

I have not used religion in my arguments at all. If that's what you are implying.

post #109 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
but make it available now.

Do you know anything about the vaccine?
post #110 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
It's not hard to understand, it's that getting people to stop fornicating is a pie in the sky, unrealistic goal.

And all "unrealistic" goals ought to be discarded?
post #111 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Do you know anything about the vaccine?

Enough that it seems viable. I also know that it's wrong if religious concerns are holding it back ( as the title of this thread suggests ).

Outside of religious concerns what do you know about it?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #112 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Enough that it seems viable. I also know that it's wrong if religious concerns are holding it back ( as the title of this thread suggests ).

Outside of religious concerns what do you know about it?

1. Research appears to have begun around 1999.

2. The first succesful trials were reported in late 2002.

3. The claims are 100% successful (in its first clinical trial).
- Apparently, the study selected for women who showed some sort of robust natural immunity that kept them from expressing the HPV markers.
- The women in this study are only monitored for HPV infection if they show a positive Pap smear. The CDC recognizes that the Pap test produces a wide range of false negative results, the studys foundation - the Pap test - is unreliable enough that the rest of the study is rendered suspect.
- The study used a cancer detection method which is known to be inaccurate, with a rate of false negative test results that ranges from 1 percent to 93 percent.

4. No long-term trials have been conducted.

5. It would (have to) be given to teenage girls.

6. It would only work in females who have not yet become sexually active.

7. The vaccine fights four of the most common (but not all of the more that 100 varieties...30 of which are linked to cervical cancer) strains of HPV, including a strain that causes genital warts.

8. The HPV virus, which is the root of the disease, is transmitted by sexual intercourse and thus the transmission is preventable/avoidable.

9. Infection with HPV usually occurs in the early years of sexual activity but it takes up to twenty years for it to develop into a full blown malignant tumor.

10. Cervical cancer strikes about 13,000 U.S. women each year.

11. Cervical cancer claims the lives of approximately 3,700 women in the U.S. each year...though if caught early, through regular pap smear tests is successfully treatable. If it's detected early, it's very easy to treat and prevent cancer, or prevent death due to cancer.

12. "I would like to see it that if you don't have your HPV vaccine, you can't start high school," said Juan Carlos Felix of the University of Southern California, who leads the National Cervical Cancer Coalition's medical advisory panel.

13. Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory. (contrary to what the title of this thread says)

14. It could possibly be given to men as well.

15. More than 75 percent of women are infected with HPV at some time during their lives but in most cases it only lasts for a short time and produces no symptoms.

That's a decent synopsis.
post #113 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
1. Research appears to have begun around 1999.

2. The first succesful trials were reported in late 2002.

3. The claims are 100% successful (in its first clinical trial).
- Apparently, the study selected for women who showed some sort of robust natural immunity that kept them from expressing the HPV markers.
- The women in this study are only monitored for HPV infection if they show a positive Pap smear. The CDC recognizes that the Pap test produces a wide range of false negative results, the studys foundation - the Pap test - is unreliable enough that the rest of the study is rendered suspect.
- The study used a cancer detection method which is known to be inaccurate, with a rate of false negative test results that ranges from 1 percent to 93 percent.

4. No long-term trials have been conducted.

5. It would (have to) be given to teenage girls.

6. It would only work in females who have not yet become sexually active.

7. The vaccine fights four of the most common (but not all of the more that 100 varieties...30 of which are linked to cervical cancer) strains of HPV, including a strain that causes genital warts.

8. The HPV virus, which is the root of the disease, is transmitted by sexual intercourse and thus the transmission is preventable/avoidable.

9. Infection with HPV usually occurs in the early years of sexual activity but it takes up to twenty years for it to develop into a full blown malignant tumor.

10. Cervical cancer strikes about 13,000 U.S. women each year.

11. Cervical cancer claims the lives of approximately 3,700 women in the U.S. each year...though if caught early, through regular pap smear tests is successfully treatable. If it's detected early, it's very easy to treat and prevent cancer, or prevent death due to cancer.

12. "I would like to see it that if you don't have your HPV vaccine, you can't start high school," said Juan Carlos Felix of the University of Southern California, who leads the National Cervical Cancer Coalition's medical advisory panel.

13. Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory. (contrary to what the title of this thread says)

14. It could possibly be given to men as well.

15. More than 75 percent of women are infected with HPV at some time during their lives but in most cases it only lasts for a short time and produces no symptoms.

That's a decent synopsis.

Well as long as it's not mandatory it sounds completely viable.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #114 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, from an article I posted (mid-thread) it seems that the opposition is about having it be mandatory...not the outright approval of it. I have been unable to find anything in my Googling around to say that vaccine itself is opposed. So this thread starter was a bit of a red herring to begin with.

I mentioned that in about thee 5th post in this thread.

But the fact is, no vaccines are truly mandatory, nor would this one be. I hear all the time about parents (stupidly, IMO) not getting their kids vaccinated because they think it causes autism, or some nonsense like that. This is just about putting the vaccination in the standard line-up, like MMR is today. Schools or other institutions could require it for attendance, but I believe even they routinely make exceptions.
post #115 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Well as long as it's not mandatory it sounds completely viable.

Maybe you glossed over this part:

Quote:
- Apparently, the study selected for women who showed some sort of robust natural immunity that kept them from expressing the HPV markers.
- The women in this study are only monitored for HPV infection if they show a positive Pap smear. The CDC recognizes that the Pap test produces a wide range of false negative results, the studys foundation - the Pap test - is unreliable enough that the rest of the study is rendered suspect.
- The study used a cancer detection method which is known to be inaccurate, with a rate of false negative test results that ranges from 1 percent to 93 percent.

4. No long-term trials have been conducted.

8. The HPV virus, which is the root of the disease, is transmitted by sexual intercourse and thus the transmission is preventable/avoidable.

11. Cervical cancer claims the lives of approximately 3,700 women in the U.S. each year...though if caught early, through regular pap smear tests is successfully treatable. If it's detected early, it's very easy to treat and prevent cancer, or prevent death due to cancer.

I would be concerned about approval based on the limited trials so far.

My own internal "bullshit alarm" goes off when someone comes out with 100% success in the first tests done.
post #116 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I mentioned that in about thee 5th post in this thread.

Sorry. Must have missed it. Wasn't trying to steal credit.

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
But the fact is, no vaccines are truly mandatory, nor would this one be.

Well...if you couldn't get into (public) high school without it...it is. No two ways about that.
post #117 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla


I would be concerned about approval based on the limited trials so far.

My own internal "bullshit alarm" goes off when someone comes out with 100% success in the first tests done.

Maybe you don't understand vaccines. Anything less than a 100% success rate would be SHOCKING.

Edit: I am still laughing about this one, Chris. I am so sorry, but I guess I shouldn't have believed that people are on top of the science behind the common treatments for disease etc....
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #118 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Maybe you don't understand vaccines.

Yes. Perhaps I don't.

Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Anything less than a 100% success rate would be SHOCKING.

Quote:
Efficacy of routinely used vaccines*
Diphtheria: 87%-96%
Tetanus: >90%
Pertussis: 35%-96%
Recent studies have shown that pertussis vaccines currently in use in the United Kingdom have efficacies of over 90%
Haemophilus influenzae type b (conjugate vaccines): 94%-100%
The polyribosylribitol phosphate-diphtheria toxoid conjugate vaccine (not used in the United Kingdom or the United States) may have a lower efficacy in some populations
Oral polio: 90%-100%
Oral polio vaccine seems to be less immunogenic in developing countries
Measles: 90%-95%
Mumps: 90%-98%
The Rubini strain of vaccine virus has a lower efficacyin fact, a general study showed it to have no protective efficacy14
Rubella: >95%
BCG (Bacille Calmette-Guérin): 0%-80%
In British schoolchildren efficacy has been found to be almost 80%, whereas a study in schoolchildren in Georgia in the United States showed no protective effect
*A wide range of efficacies has been reported, depending on vaccine, conditions of use, and target group

Here's one site I found (my Googling only seems to find the Avian flu and cervical cancer vaccines comign up as "100% effective" which is curious):

http://www.iavi.org/viewpage.cfm?aid...&fontsize=down

Quote:
No vaccine is 100% effective. In fact, most vaccines are between 70 and 95% effective in protecting those vaccinated against the targeted disease.
post #119 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, from an article I posted (mid-thread) it seems that the opposition is about having it be mandatory...not the outright approval of it. I have been unable to find anything in my Googling around to say that vaccine itself is opposed. So this thread starter was a bit of a red herring to begin with.

Well, I was able to find it on the first page of the google search for "HPV vaccine" (sans quotes):
Quote:
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher [of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group] claims

so apparently the problem isn't what you call a "red herring" but rather your apparent inability to use google.
post #120 of 260
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes. Perhaps I don't.





Here's one site I found (my Googling only seems to find the Avian flu and cervical cancer vaccines comign up as "100% effective" which is curious):

http://www.iavi.org/viewpage.cfm?aid...&fontsize=down

Small scale studies won't pick up on variance between 95% and 100%...

But, the point is you shouldn't be surprised... most vaccines are found to have lower efficacies after the fact -- issues with production and inoculation techniques...

In any event... it isn't something that should cause your bs meter to go off....

Edit: One of the Polio vaccines is 100% effective.

Edit 2: Never mind that is in your list...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine