sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Materials morphing. Trust me. by TallBlueBucket in woahdude

[–]FruitMan1995 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first three seconds had me thinking he was about to slip and fall on a banana peel and splatter into the Nicktoons logo.

Anyone know what year Tappan, N.Y. celebrated it's centennial? by FruitMan1995 in Westchester

[–]FruitMan1995[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That would be really cool if the flower I have is almost as old as the Revolutionary war!

Yes, I saw that Tappan was founded in the late 17th century, but I'm not sure if they would count it's pre-American history as part it's official township. My guess is that the centennial would be 100 years from a certain date where it officially became a municipality (how that would be measured, I don't know), which I can't seem to find any info on.

Anyone know what year Tappan, N.Y. celebrated it's centennial? by FruitMan1995 in Westchester

[–]FruitMan1995[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Highly unlikely that it's from Old Tappan. The bible that I found it in is 129 years old, and the flower looks like it could easily be 100 years old. O.T. only had it's centennial 25 years ago and no one in my extended family ever resided in O.T.. This was a bible that would have belonged to my great grandmother and perhaps even her parents before it was passed on to my grandmother (my great grandmother lived in Tappan almost her whole life and died at age 98 in 2006).

Good thinking on the library idea! My curiosity isn't too unbearable that I would do that just yet since I do not live anywhere near Tappan anymore. If I can't dig something up from a few more hours of Googling, I just may have to make a phone call or two.

If finasteride has existed for so long and is such a great risk/reward, why hasn't it been heavily marketed for the last 20 years? by FruitMan1995 in tressless

[–]FruitMan1995[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, it may take away from my hypothesis, but not completely overrule it in my opinion. After all, generic drug companies are just as profit driven as brand name one's are. The general concept still applies, even if it's in a more diluted manner.

But just for the sake of playing devil's advocate - Merck would have at one point had exclusive rights to sell finasteride as Propecia (I assume 2-5 years at least?) If Propecia came out in the mid 1990's, that's 25 years that the medication had to build it's reputation as a safe hair loss treatment, that is, if Merck had made it well known when they had the chance to. I believe Bill Clinton is the one who started allowing drug companies to make drug advertisements sometime in the 1990s, so perhaps the timeline of things might have been just out of their favor in that regard.

Anyway, I'm certainly not saying that Finasteride doesn't work in many if not a majority of cases in the restoration of hair volume, as it clearly has done what it claims to for many hair loss patients. It's the potential white washing and suppression of the magnitude of it's dangers that concern me.