I spent a spare moment this morning admiring a parked Mini Cooper, which was the old version (noticeably much tinier than the current version) which was parked between two contemporary station wagons for better contrast, and when I got closer I realized that it was a right-hand drive setup, too, with a stick. Hard core!

My boss collects those. When the new Mini came out, he put himself on a waiting list to get one of the first ones. But when he saw it, he decided not to buy it. He said that it's not a real Mini unless it leaves a puddle of fluids wherever it's parked.

The thing that worries me is that while there are plenty of studies proving the vaccine is both safe and fairly effective in pre-18 girls, there's not really any evidence proving it's either in boys.

Are there medications/vaccines that have proven safe in females but not males?

(Of course we should test it to the hilt in this regard, I'm just pondering things)

I know there are some medications that women shouldn't take or touch (well, pregnant women) but I think they involve hormones. And I know that for years most medications were ONLY tested on men [link] [link]

Even there it seems like dosing concerns or increased side effects, not dropping dead from it. IS there any major risk to, for once, giving men something that was tested on women instead of the other way around? Then again, what do I know? Until yesterday I thought swaths of children regularly died from measels, mumps and rubella.

Is there any major risk to, for once, giving men something that was tested on women instead of the other way around?

The most likely one I can think of is creating a generation of men who think they've been innoculated yet are still capable of contracting and transmitting HPV to partners whose fears have been eased by a vaccine that's ineffective in half the population. Note I'm not saying never, I'm saying find out if it will actually do any good before mandating compulsory vaccination.

The most likely one I can think of is creating a generation of men who think they've been innoculated yet are still capable of contracting and transmitting HPV to partners whose fears have been eased by a vaccine that's ineffective in half the population.

So, the risk wouldn't be to the male vaccinee; it would be to the herd, as it were. I didn't even think about that side of things. Interesting.

If Beverly's DH is coming to the hotel at 11:30, what time should I wake Beverly and Cass up so that they will be ready when he gets here?

Is there any major risk to, for once, giving men something that was tested on women instead of the other way around?

There are diseases that render men sterile that don't do the same for women. Mumps, e.g. I think rheumatic fever disproportionally affects the hearts of male sickos* over female, too.

(* What do we call people with a sickness?? My brain isn't working. "Victim" is definitely the wrong word.)

Propecia (a hair-regrowth drug, initially developed to treat prostate problems) carries a warning that women shouldn't take or touch it. It doesn't say why.

Is anyone around who could translate a phrase into Latin for me?

It's been awhile, but yeah. Lemme have it. I got 5 years of Latin percolating somewhere amongst the dead brain cells.

Note I'm not saying never, I'm saying find out if it will actually do any good before mandating compulsory vaccination.

I agree with Matt on this point completely. Actually, the only argument against making the HPV vaccine mandatory that really resonates with me is those who want more research and testing first. Absolutely the FDA needs to be very certain about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine before anyone takes it.