Merck & Co. Inc. (MRK)

All Comments on MRK

  • commenter
    scorp99cam
    Jul 27 08:55 PM
    8 Dow Stocks Likely To Outperform [view article]
    At least be fair. He showed the highest yields, then selected the ones he felt were mispriced. It is important to be skeptical, but he had a point and he made it. He was attempting dogs of the dow with a brain. Whether or not you would like to investigate further is up to you. Reply
  • commenter
    techy
    Jul 27 08:18 PM
    8 Dow Stocks Likely To Outperform [view article]
    i totally agree....just buying a stock for dividend can get you killed...

    how can you recommend financials when their books are completely opaque??

    beware of GE also...its almost like 50% financial.

    PFE may have no drug in pipeline...but the stock is priced very low.....start building position now...i think the bottom will not be below 16, and one good catalyst will send this stock to 20     Reply
  • commenter
    samadams
    Jul 27 07:01 PM
    8 Dow Stocks Likely To Outperform [view article]
    Look for safe and growing dividends not just high yield. You also left the 2 cash cows of Chevron/Exxon off your list. Pfizer has no pipeline, I could go on but no point. Hate to be mean but this is a useless post. Reply
  • commenter
    jrhc
    Jul 27 05:01 PM
    The State of Statins and Stents [view article]
    The higher number of cancer may be called 'anomaly' because ezitimibe doesn't show potential to damage DNA or other 'pro cancer' properties. The only way to close the issue is longer observational studies (like the Nurses' Health Study I and II studies) with more than 40,000 people. Reply
  • commenter
    MistaWhite
    Jul 27 04:58 PM
    8 Dow Stocks Likely To Outperform [view article]
    The dogs of the dow might have worked back in the day. Some of those dogs are dogs now. I think the same thing can be applied; however, there needs to be more homework done this time around. Reply
  • commenter
    2houndz
    Jul 27 04:16 PM
    8 Dow Stocks Likely To Outperform [view article]
    Comments here are just brutal, but I have to agree that this is worthless advice. Reply
  • commenter
    pennystocks2
    008
    Jul 27 03:32 PM
    8 Dow Stocks Likely To Outperform [view article]
    You stock market genius, find out first whether it is Proctor & Gamble or Procter & Gamble. Why should we take you seriously?

    By the way, what really matters is the dividend growth rate, esp. given the current inflationary environment. Of course, not a single word from you. And that guy wrote a book about stock-picking!     Reply
  • commenter
    Richard
    Wendling
    Jul 27 03:24 PM
    My Website
    8 Dow Stocks Likely To Outperform [view article]
    You forget two of the most important issues when looking at your basket of stocks. As DJIA stocks their dividends can be cut or suspended entirely in short order, and secondly as the DJIA moves lower so will their individual stocks prices. As the DJIA moves toward my projected lows of 9,200 in the coming months all of your high priced dividend stocks will have their dividends cut.

    For more of my views on the market place and individual stocks click on the website link by this comment.

    Richard     Reply
  • commenter
    Emerald
    Jul 27 03:19 PM
    8 Dow Stocks Likely To Outperform [view article]
    Perhaps down, but good upside numbers over the next three years. Reply
  • commenter
    TraderGreg
    Jul 27 02:48 PM
    8 Dow Stocks Likely To Outperform [view article]
    My bet: your basket will be down, and DIA will be down. The DIA will be more down than your basket. I hope, it'll make you happy :-)

     Reply
  • commenter
    CLH
    Jul 27 01:58 PM
    The State of Statins and Stents [view article]
    If the drug company believes the cancer cases are an anomaly, the FDA should ask for a larger study. In fact the drug company should do it on their own to protect themselves.

    No drug companies are not evil.     Reply
  • commenter
    redbaron
    Jul 27 11:54 AM
    The State of Statins and Stents [view article]
    'The companies say the higher number of cancer cases is likely an anomaly.'

    I don't see how they can have it both ways, i.e., how can the drug co.'s use the data to legitimately support the use of statins, and at the same time selectively ignore the rest of the data as an 'anomaly'? And, I might add, ignore the data that shows no benefit in terms of additional longevity from the use of statins.

    One could as easily use the same data to 'selectively' conclude, 1) there is no increased longevity from these drugs, and 2) there is a 50% additional risk from cancer deaths. Again, this is selectively using the data, but isn't that what the drug companies are doing?

    How can an individual private practice doc make rational decisions for their patients, when the drug companies are self promoting the drugs in this fashion? The standard of care dictates one thing, and one could selectively interpret the data in quite the oposite fashion.

    It would seem to me that we need good statistical independent interpretation of the data, with the key word being 'independent'. And additionally, it is quite apparent to me that the drug companies are not going to be the source of that interpretation. One would also have to wonder if our FDA is independent enough to perform this task.

    As for me, I will not take the drugs again.



    Reply
  • commenter
    caradiodoc
    Jul 27 01:23 AM
    Dow 30 Performance Since 7/15 [view article]
    Who is the ignorant one? The previous writer. It is proven over and over again that you stifle what you tax. (Cigarette tax is proof). When Reagan cut taxes, tax revenue went up because people had more of their own money to spend, and every time it changed hands, the government took another cut. You can't argue with facts. It has also been proven that "Reaganomics"... worked, and it took ten years, just like he said it would. How did he know? It was done before, only the media didn't give it a name when President Kennedy did it. Eventually every cent of every dollar finds it way back to the government; at issue is how many hands it helps along the way. Also, Bush did not cut taxes; the previous Republican Congress did it, Bush just approved it. And since then, revenue has steadily increased again. Now you want to increase the tax burden, have less money to spend, and have less money in the treasury so we'll have to raise taxes again. Only an idiot would burn his ax handle to stay warm. Only an idiot would propose raising taxes and expect to find more revenue in the treasury. Those idiots are in the majority of Congress now and will probably remain so thanks to the many uneducated voters.

    If the previous writer thinks government is the answer to his problems, (since he apparently can't take care of himself), I suggest HE pay more taxes, and leave the rest of us alone. In fact if more taxes are the answer, where should we stop? I already lose 51 percent of my paycheck to the government! Should I pay 60 percent? 70 percent? How about I just give them 100 percent, then get food stamps to buy food, a welfare check to buy clothes, live in government-subsidized housing, get "free" health care like the suckers in England are complaining about, and let some government agency approve money for my every need. Sounds kinda like Communism, doesn't it? Hillary Clinton has been spewing quotes from Karl Marx; I guess that's why she's so popular among the uneducated masses.

    Whatever happened to self-reliance? If you think you can't afford health care, get off your lazy butt, get an education, invest in yourself and your future, and get a good-paying job. The Democrats love to play on class envy, pitting the wealthy against the rest of us, the greedy business owners against the lowly workers, the fearful against the risk-takers. So where would the workers be if there weren't people willing to risk starting a business? If a business owner is successful, makes a good living, and provides many jobs, why should he be punished with higher taxes? Why do we reward laziness with government handouts?

    If you want to see where we are headed, look where we came from. 1800s: No excessive taxes on every imaginable thing. Hard-working people built this country into the richest one in the world in less than two hundred years. Everyone was responsible for themselves. Handouts came from the church. People worked hard and kept what they worked for. They saved for the time when they were too old to work, and were often a part of large extended families. No one cried about the government not taking care of their every need. How silly! You worked hard in school. Your parents knew that an education was the ticket to a higher standard of living, and teachers were willing to put in the hard work to help you. If you misbehaved, you were punished twice; once at school, and again at home. There was no reporting of "crime rates". There wasn't enough to twist into a news story. Friends and neighbors participated in "barn-raisings&qu... There were no property taxes and you didn't need a permit. The country was built on hard work. Hard work and success were respected. Hard work led to success which led to increased self esteem which would have been laughed at as a topic of intellectual discussion.

    2000s: Everyone must have two cars, a boat, a house nicer than their neighbors, new tvs, computers, and 2.3 kids with all their whiny wants. Aging parents are warehoused in nursing homes so we are free to hold down a better job to earn more money to pay for the nursing home. If you prepare for a career in a very practical trade school, work hard, are a good, reliable employee, you will be punished with higher taxes. If you drop out of high school because you are too lazy to apply yourself to the minimal demands of the teachers, you will be rewarded with government handouts. Everything is based on meeting your wants and needs with other people's money. If you spend irresponsibly, you can look to the government to bail you out. When the government spends irresponsibly, you cry the loudest about what idiots they are. (Yet we keep re-electing Ted Kennedy and Dave Obey over and over because they keep promising to give you something they took from someone else). If you do the responsible thing and save for your retirement, you will be punished with taxes on your sad little interest income, punished with taxes and penalties if you want to use your own money before a certain age, and this one just boggles the mind: People like the previous writer chided President Bush for pushing for private retirement accounts! What in the world is wrong with investing your own money where you want to, and keeping what you earn?! Social Security is the biggest joke ever shoved down our throats. Pay and pay and pay all your working life so you will get a tiny percentage back later! Who puts a dollar into a savings account with the hope of withdrawing 40 cents a few years later? And then you're happy when you get a "cost-of-living&q... increase to 42 cents. Teachers are not respected. Any attempt at discipline is thwarted by parents. Children are taught that there are no repercussions for their actions because mommy and daddy will always come to their rescue. There's no need to take responsibility for your actions. Valuable school time is wasted on self esteem, the current popular misconception dreamed up by some over-educated idiot. (I recently ran a class for twelve 12th graders from five different high schools (really good kids). Not one of them could do 12 divided by 6 in their heads! "We need a calculator" was the reply from two of them, . . . but they felt real good about themselves). Self esteem is a result of learning through hard work and accomplishment, but many today would have you believe you will magically learn more if we make you feel good. And people fall for this nonsense, well, at least until the next misguided theory comes along.

    So here we are at 2008. Unbelievable medical research has given us much longer life spans, amazing cures, and a better quality of life. But there are some who want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg out of fear they might not be able to afford the cure that didn't even exist a few decades ago. You can not name anything the government manages better than the private sector so why do we expect the health care system to be the first thing the government runs successfully? Hospitals will no longer have sufficient funds to buy new advanced equipment. There will be a reduction and slowing of results from research facilities. How many thousands of people will be needed to track all the paperwork, all funded by the taxpayers so they can have "free" health care. Ask anyone from Great Britain and they will tell you that free health care is just too expensive and of very low quality. We have already been reduced to a second-world nation; how much further do we need to go before we realize how much we've given up? If you think I'm off base, ask yourself how many amazing cures have come out of England, . . . or France, . . . or Spain. All major research has been taking place in the United States where most of it is funded in a responsible manner with private dollars. And this is the system the uneducated want to dismantle!

    I'm so tired of people knocking President Bush. He sees a much clearer picture of where we're headed, and is constantly ridiculed for looking to the future by people who don't have any sensible answers, just criticism. Please remember that the President does not make new laws and policies; he only signs what is brought before him. And right now that's your Democrat Congress that takes and takes and takes, and scares you into believing the other fellow isn't giving enough. Well you're that other fellow sucker.

    So you got mugged in a dark alley, huh? He took your last $100.00? Don't worry, he has a plan. He's convinced you that since you now have no money, you must rely on him. He gave you $5.00 to buy a burger and Coke. You are so grateful, and you know you'll be needing his help in the future so you stand guard over his alley to prevent the cops from nabbing him. How wonderful to have such a great benefactor. Of course as time goes by, he will mug more people, and you deserve more of his take. You will complain loudly until he gives you $6.00. Now you can get that bigger burger you wanted. Every day he mugs more people, but don't feel guilty; it's "your" money he's giving you!

    Final thought: Why is it most young people, (old enough to work and vote, young enough to have no concept of recent history), think the government hands out free money, and will vote for any Democrat who promises more? Why is it most middle-aged people figure out they've been duped, come to their senses, and realize what's good for their employer is good for them, and good for the country? We vote for the responsible Republicans who push self-reliance, hard work, and keeping the results of your hard work.

    Democrat: You must fear of what will happen without us.
    Republican: Government must get out of the way and let people continue building a great nation.

    Democrat: Say and promise whatever you want to hear so we'll get re-elected.
    Republican: Say what needs to be said for our own good, even at the risk of not getting re-elected.

    Democrat: The other group, (the wealthy, the big business, the entrepreneur) is bad and you need us to fight them for you.
    Republican: What looks like a benefit to one group will result in benefits to everyone. The world ain't fair; not everyone gets the same sunshine, but you should be free to move yourself to where there's more sunshine, . . . if that's what you want.
     Reply
  • commenter
    caradiodoc
    Jul 27 01:23 AM
    Dow 30 Performance Since 7/15 [view article]
    Who is the ignorant one? The previous writer. It is proven over and over again that you stifle what you tax. (Cigarette tax is proof). When Reagan cut taxes, tax revenue went up because people had more of their own money to spend, and every time it changed hands, the government took another cut. You can't argue with facts. It has also been proven that "Reaganomics"... worked, and it took ten years, just like he said it would. How did he know? It was done before, only the media didn't give it a name when President Kennedy did it. Eventually every cent of every dollar finds it way back to the government; at issue is how many hands it helps along the way. Also, Bush did not cut taxes; the previous Republican Congress did it, Bush just approved it. And since then, revenue has steadily increased again. Now you want to increase the tax burden, have less money to spend, and have less money in the treasury so we'll have to raise taxes again. Only an idiot would burn his ax handle to stay warm. Only an idiot would propose raising taxes and expect to find more revenue in the treasury. Those idiots are in the majority of Congress now and will probably remain so thanks to the many uneducated voters.

    If the previous writer thinks government is the answer to his problems, (since he apparently can't take care of himself), I suggest HE pay more taxes, and leave the rest of us alone. In fact if more taxes are the answer, where should we stop? I already lose 51 percent of my paycheck to the government! Should I pay 60 percent? 70 percent? How about I just give them 100 percent, then get food stamps to buy food, a welfare check to buy clothes, live in government-subsidized housing, get "free" health care like the suckers in England are complaining about, and let some government agency approve money for my every need. Sounds kinda like Communism, doesn't it? Hillary Clinton has been spewing quotes from Karl Marx; I guess that's why she's so popular among the uneducated masses.

    Whatever happened to self-reliance? If you think you can't afford health care, get off your lazy butt, get an education, invest in yourself and your future, and get a good-paying job. The Democrats love to play on class envy, pitting the wealthy against the rest of us, the greedy business owners against the lowly workers, the fearful against the risk-takers. So where would the workers be if there weren't people willing to risk starting a business? If a business owner is successful, makes a good living, and provides many jobs, why should he be punished with higher taxes? Why do we reward laziness with government handouts?

    If you want to see where we are headed, look where we came from. 1800s: No excessive taxes on every imaginable thing. Hard-working people built this country into the richest one in the world in less than two hundred years. Everyone was responsible for themselves. Handouts came from the church. People worked hard and kept what they worked for. They saved for the time when they were too old to work, and were often a part of large extended families. No one cried about the government not taking care of their every need. How silly! You worked hard in school. Your parents knew that an education was the ticket to a higher standard of living, and teachers were willing to put in the hard work to help you. If you misbehaved, you were punished twice; once at school, and again at home. There was no reporting of "crime rates". There wasn't enough to twist into a news story. Friends and neighbors participated in "barn-raisings&qu... There were no property taxes and you didn't need a permit. The country was built on hard work. Hard work and success were respected. Hard work led to success which led to increased self esteem which would have been laughed at as a topic of intellectual discussion.

    2000s: Everyone must have two cars, a boat, a house nicer than their neighbors, new tvs, computers, and 2.3 kids with all their whiny wants. Aging parents are warehoused in nursing homes so we are free to hold down a better job to earn more money to pay for the nursing home. If you prepare for a career in a very practical trade school, work hard, are a good, reliable employee, you will be punished with higher taxes. If you drop out of high school because you are too lazy to apply yourself to the minimal demands of the teachers, you will be rewarded with government handouts. Everything is based on meeting your wants and needs with other people's money. If you spend irresponsibly, you can look to the government to bail you out. When the government spends irresponsibly, you cry the loudest about what idiots they are. (Yet we keep re-electing Ted Kennedy and Dave Obey over and over because they keep promising to give you something they took from someone else). If you do the responsible thing and save for your retirement, you will be punished with taxes on your sad little interest income, punished with taxes and penalties if you want to use your own money before a certain age, and this one just boggles the mind: People like the previous writer chided President Bush for pushing for private retirement accounts! What in the world is wrong with investing your own money where you want to, and keeping what you earn?! Social Security is the biggest joke ever shoved down our throats. Pay and pay and pay all your working life so you will get a tiny percentage back later! Who puts a dollar into a savings account with the hope of withdrawing 40 cents a few years later? And then you're happy when you get a "cost-of-living&q... increase to 42 cents. Teachers are not respected. Any attempt at discipline is thwarted by parents. Children are taught that there are no repercussions for their actions because mommy and daddy will always come to their rescue. There's no need to take responsibility for your actions. Valuable school time is wasted on self esteem, the current popular misconception dreamed up by some over-educated idiot. (I recently ran a class for twelve 12th graders from five different high schools (really good kids). Not one of them could do 12 divided by 6 in their heads! "We need a calculator" was the reply from two of them, . . . but they felt real good about themselves). Self esteem is a result of learning through hard work and accomplishment, but many today would have you believe you will magically learn more if we make you feel good. And people fall for this nonsense, well, at least until the next misguided theory comes along.

    So here we are at 2008. Unbelievable medical research has given us much longer life spans, amazing cures, and a better quality of life. But there are some who want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg out of fear they might not be able to afford the cure that didn't even exist a few decades ago. You can not name anything the government manages better than the private sector so why do we expect the health care system to be the first thing the government runs successfully? Hospitals will no longer have sufficient funds to buy new advanced equipment. There will be a reduction and slowing of results from research facilities. How many thousands of people will be needed to track all the paperwork, all funded by the taxpayers so they can have "free" health care. Ask anyone from Great Britain and they will tell you that free health care is just too expensive and of very low quality. We have already been reduced to a second-world nation; how much further do we need to go before we realize how much we've given up? If you think I'm off base, ask yourself how many amazing cures have come out of England, . . . or France, . . . or Spain. All major research has been taking place in the United States where most of it is funded in a responsible manner with private dollars. And this is the system the uneducated want to dismantle!

    I'm so tired of people knocking President Bush. He sees a much clearer picture of where we're headed, and is constantly ridiculed for looking to the future by people who don't have any sensible answers, just criticism. Please remember that the President does not make new laws and policies; he only signs what is brought before him. And right now that's your Democrat Congress that takes and takes and takes, and scares you into believing the other fellow isn't giving enough. Well you're that other fellow sucker.

    So you got mugged in a dark alley, huh? He took your last $100.00? Don't worry, he has a plan. He's convinced you that since you now have no money, you must rely on him. He gave you $5.00 to buy a burger and Coke. You are so grateful, and you know you'll be needing his help in the future so you stand guard over his alley to prevent the cops from nabbing him. How wonderful to have such a great benefactor. Of course as time goes by, he will mug more people, and you deserve more of his take. You will complain loudly until he gives you $6.00. Now you can get that bigger burger you wanted. Every day he mugs more people, but don't feel guilty; it's "your" money he's giving you!

    Final thought: Why is it most young people, (old enough to work and vote, young enough to have no concept of recent history), think the government hands out free money, and will vote for any Democrat who promises more? Why is it most middle-aged people figure out they've been duped, come to their senses, and realize what's good for their employer is good for them, and good for the country? We vote for the responsible Republicans who push self-reliance, hard work, and keeping the results of your hard work.

    Democrat: You must fear of what will happen without us.
    Republican: Government must get out of the way and let people continue building a great nation.

    Democrat: Say and promise whatever you want to hear so we'll get re-elected.
    Republican: Say what needs to be said for our own good, even at the risk of not getting re-elected.

    Democrat: The other group, (the wealthy, the big business, the entrepreneur) is bad and you need us to fight them for you.
    Republican: What looks like a benefit to one group will result in benefits to everyone. The world ain't fair; not everyone gets the same sunshine, but you should be free to move yourself to where there's more sunshine, . . . if that's what you want.




    On Jul 25 09:03 AM User 26737 wrote:

    > the "bush" league administration is taking our government down more
    > and more. taxes MUST increase with the new President to save the
    > $$$ and save Our Country! Thank God, king george iii will finally
    > leave the throne of ignorance .......... Hurry Jan 20th 2009!

    >
    >
    > Please hurry...... please!     Reply
  • commenter
    User 161804
    Jul 26 09:22 AM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    ISV worth a look, good fundamentals, there were spikes on Thursday and Friday despite a bad market. A cup and handle was formed maybe in anticipation of good earnings. Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: