If you look at the author list of the study (and their institutional affiliations are very clearly listed on the first page) you'll note that there are six total authors, and only one of them works for Proctor and Gamble, the rest are at UNC Chapel Hill.

The methodology of the study is sound as is the sample size (2207 women). The assumption of any survey study is that most respondents will answer honestly, as they've had the study described to them before agreeing to become a participant (and so why answer dishonestly if you're going to bother participating?) The broadsheet writer seems more interested in making snarky comments than substantive criticisms of the published article, as when she notes at the end that if "9 percent of women surveyed had a problematically low sex drive. Well, crap, that's not going to sell testosterone patches." Actually, it is. If the sample is representative (and unless the authors are outright lying, it appears to be) then even if the results are restricted to only American women between the ages of 18 and 70, 9% of that total means somewhere around 10 million women have this problem. To put that in context, there are currently 4 million people in the US with Alzheimer's Disease. Are they also not a problem and not deserving of medical care because they represent such a minor fraction of the total population?

Does P&G have a financial interest in determining whether there is a market for their drug? Of course they do, and to suggest otherwise would be hopelessly naive. But just because a market exists for a drug doesn't mean the problem is being manufactured. Demonize corporations for the legitimately bad things that they do, don't just grasp at straws playing to the peanut gallery.

I completely agree with Mike from Tempe. How is Bill Richardson not only not on the list, but not a forerunner? He brings virtually everything Obama needs as a candidate - foreign policy experience (no one else mentioned can touch him there), a swing state (New Mexico was for Gore by 0.06% in 2000, for Bush by 0.81% in 2004), he's Hispanic which might help Obama gain some ground with Hispanic voters, and actual governing experience (though Kaine and Sebelius have that too).

If this had not been the "star studded" primary it turned out to be, Richardson would have been my choice for Democratic candidate. Turns out he didn't have the star power to make the campaign work, but I can see no reason why he isn't being seriously discussed for Obama's VP choice.

While the vast majority of us just sit around complaining about the government, you're actively doing something to make it better. Good for you!

This is something that, in theory, should be a truly bipartisan effort. Republicans need to understand that just because officials with a GOP affiliation would be the immediate targets of investigations re: Iraq and the war on terror, that an accountable government is a good thing for the people regardless of which party is in power. And we Democrats need to hold our own elected representatives to the same standard that we'd like Republicans to live by. It's only through honest self-assessment that an effort like this can work, but I truly think it can.

I'm in.

I grew up in Pennsylvania, and constantly had people shoving Yuengling down my throat telling me what a grear beer it is, and going on and on about how old the brewery was. The truth is that it wasn't, it tastes like every other cheap beer with a musty overtone that suggests it's been lingering in some dimly lit basement for too long.

When I escaped to New York City I had hoped to be finished with Yuengling, but alas, it can now be found in a variety of bars there as well (for the bargain price of $5-7 per beer, which is more than I would ever hope to pay for a six-pack of the stuff) being touted as some sort of specialty beer.

So I moved to the UK, where lagers aren't even considered to be proper "beer" according to most of the locals, and I still see this god awful brew being sold to clueless europeans, who for some reason seem to buy it up.

It doesn't taste good. It's not that cheap. Shouldn't that disqualify it from being placed in the running for "America's next great beer"?

Please don't rely on a group as partisan as Judicial Watch to provide an informed analysis of the risks of this vaccine when they have such a strong social and political motivation to keep it controversial.

Here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/2008SeriousVAERS.pdf

is the data that judicial watch unconvered from their Freedom to Information Act requests concerning adverse reactions to the vaccination.

Some of them sound serious, I'm amazed that some of them are even included in there (like the one where a patient reported severe shoulder pain - not at the site of injection - a day after being vaccinated that then went away). Regardless, prudence is always warranted when advocating widespread use of a new medication of vaccination and it's a good thing that people are paying attention to adverse reactions. And virtually all vaccines provoke some unwanted responses. But let's not overreact - assuming Gardasil is as effective as its proponents claim it to be, the long term public health benefits far, far outweight the risks as suggested even by the data that judicial watch unearthed.