- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,411
- 52,717
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't know about then -- (it probably was) -- but I would say: not now, it isn't.You think the Titanic's marketing is included in science?
In the late '50s and early '60s?No, clearly not. But you can't claim the "majority" green-lighted Thalidomide when the US didn't, which is a very large market for medical science (52% of the world market for pharmaceuticals, actually).
And according to Wikipedia, the U.S. tried to get what's-her-name to acquiesce.
Well good -- I'm glad.Also, Thalidomide is a useful drug for people with multiple myeloma.
I'm sure some people would clap about that -- (if they could).
I don't need an 11-letter word to see that it was 'harmful to embryos' -- I can look at the pictures.It is just also teratogenic (harmful to developing embryos).
Because I'd rather go without zits, than go without arms.Acne creams are also teratogenic, so why don't you add that do the list of science's grievances?
Oh, my -- you knew this was coming, didn't you?You reap the benefits of science but refuse to pay it respect.
- Lion Hearted Man = Posts: 297
- AV1611VET = Posts: 1,663,905
Upvote
0