Medication time.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Medication time.

Postby slimmouse » Thu Dec 05, 2013 1:30 pm

DrEvil » 05 Dec 2013 14:55 wrote:
Iamwhomiam » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:23 pm wrote:Vaccines work through homeopathic means, so there must be something to it. Allergists develop immune responses to allergens in the allergic this way.


Aren't vaccines just weak versions of the disease you're trying to immunize for? Get a little bit sick and let your immune system build up resistance instead of getting very sick and having your immune system overrun. Not sure how that relates to homeopathy..?



This is indeed the case apparently. But you really need to listen to what the Red Ice radio interview reveals. It was something of a surprise to me, despite the fact that none of the mindless standards of certification of efficacy really should have ,when left under what amounts to almost exclusive self-supervision by those corporations who are pushing both the needles and the drugs.

Ultimately, its really quiite simple. Fortune 500 companies couldnt give a flying fuck about people. Because if they did theyd be curing them, rather than treating them. And there really is no long term profit in any medical cure, especially for biggies like cancer. There is of course gazillions of profits in treatments, providing of course that nobody is made to understand that cures actually, probably do exist.

Can you see the contradiction?

If you can't, then I cant recommend the video "What if Cannabis cured Cancer?" enough to yourself, or indeed any similar skeptics you know. Or for that mattter anyone else who hasnt seen it, skeptical or otherwise.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Medication time.

Postby DrEvil » Fri Dec 06, 2013 1:00 pm

slimmouse » Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:30 pm wrote:
DrEvil » 05 Dec 2013 14:55 wrote:
Iamwhomiam » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:23 pm wrote:Vaccines work through homeopathic means, so there must be something to it. Allergists develop immune responses to allergens in the allergic this way.


Aren't vaccines just weak versions of the disease you're trying to immunize for? Get a little bit sick and let your immune system build up resistance instead of getting very sick and having your immune system overrun. Not sure how that relates to homeopathy..?



This is indeed the case apparently. But you really need to listen to what the Red Ice radio interview reveals. It was something of a surprise to me, despite the fact that none of the mindless standards of certification of efficacy really should have ,when left under what amounts to almost exclusive self-supervision by those corporations who are pushing both the needles and the drugs.

Ultimately, its really quiite simple. Fortune 500 companies couldnt give a flying fuck about people. Because if they did theyd be curing them, rather than treating them. And there really is no long term profit in any medical cure, especially for biggies like cancer. There is of course gazillions of profits in treatments, providing of course that nobody is made to understand that cures actually, probably do exist.

Can you see the contradiction?

If you can't, then I cant recommend the video "What if Cannabis cured Cancer?" enough to yourself, or indeed any similar skeptics you know. Or for that mattter anyone else who hasnt seen it, skeptical or otherwise.


First off - I already pointed out that the study they're discussing on Red Ice is useless. It's biased to hell and back and not even close to being a representative sample. It's set up to validate Radin's beliefs, not challenge them. Any conclusions drawn from that data are flawed.

Second - If big pharma isn't interested in curing people, why are they immunizing people with vaccines? They're preemptively curing people. Polio cases has dropped by something like 99% in the last few decades because of vaccines. I see a lot of screaming about the side-effects, but no one ever mentions how many lives have been saved.

Third - If cannabis cures cancer I should be immune :)
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Medication time.

Postby coffin_dodger » Fri Dec 06, 2013 1:23 pm

It's set up to validate Radin's beliefs


To be fair, this is the basis on which most experimentation hinges.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Medication time.

Postby DrEvil » Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:19 pm

coffin_dodger » Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:23 pm wrote:
It's set up to validate Radin's beliefs


To be fair, this is the basis on which most experimentation hinges.


True, but any serious experimentation or research will try to remove/rule out any bias.
Radin is using the bias to validate himself ("Look! This biased sample agrees with me. I must be right!").
It's bad research. Plain and simple.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Medication time.

Postby elfismiles » Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:30 pm

That blog post sample is not representative of his years of research.

DrEvil » 06 Dec 2013 18:19 wrote:
coffin_dodger » Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:23 pm wrote:
It's set up to validate Radin's beliefs


To be fair, this is the basis on which most experimentation hinges.


True, but any serious experimentation or research will try to remove/rule out any bias.
Radin is using the bias to validate himself ("Look! This biased sample agrees with me. I must be right!").
It's bad research. Plain and simple.
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8511
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: Medication time.

Postby slimmouse » Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Dr Evil.

I wish to gently distract you ffrom your last dodge of my question with regards to what concerns fortune 500 companies more - profit or peoples health, whilst continuing with my own personal line of findings.

Immunizing people ? Hmm.

Ever heard of the human immune system?

How about the endocannibinoid system?

Im sure in your eyes its just a lying rumour that in a truly human envronment, any kind of diseases could probably be dealt with by the human immune system.?


Meanwhile, did you catch up with Raidns study on the effects of consciousness on water yet?
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Medication time.

Postby DrEvil » Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:03 pm

slimmouse » Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:42 pm wrote:Dr Evil.

I wish to gently distract you ffrom your last dodge of my question with regards to what concerns fortune 500 companies more - profit or peoples health, whilst continuing with my own personal line of findings.


Speaking of dodging questions: why do you always drag out fortune 500 when someone disagrees with you? It's a cheap straw-man if I ever saw one. You're still dodging my complaints about Radin's sloppy "science".

And you do realize that fortune 500 consists of 500 different companies (the name kind of gives it away)? They're not some monolithic bloc. Some of them are bad, some are not, but what I think of them is completely irrelevant to my complaints about Radin. Them being bad doesn't equal him being good, and me disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm some big pharma fan boy.

Immunizing people ? Hmm.

Ever heard of the human immune system?

How about the endocannibinoid system?


Uh, yes, and yes. Your point?

Im sure in your eyes its just a lying rumour that in a truly human envronment, any kind of diseases could probably be dealt with by the human immune system.?


Ah, there's your point. But what the hell does it mean? What is a "truly human environment"?
(As opposed to the human-made inhuman environment we apparently live in?)

And no, I don't think our immune system is equipped to deal with every kind of disease or illness.
If it was people wouldn't be getting sick and dying, and I can't believe I actually had to type that out.

Meanwhile, did you catch up with Raidns study on the effects of consciousness on water yet?


Nope.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Medication time.

Postby BrandonD » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:19 pm

DrEvil » Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:03 pm wrote:And you do realize that fortune 500 consists of 500 different companies (the name kind of gives it away)? They're not some monolithic bloc. Some of them are bad, some are not...


For what it's worth, yes in a way they are in fact a monolithic bloc.

Corporations are not individual "bad" or "good" entities as you describe them. However, the laws directing and supporting the operations of corporations are bad, and these apply to all corporations. In this manner, they are a monolithic bloc.

I might even argue that the Fortune 500 companies are in fact more monolithic than a random cross-section of companies because their tremendous success illustrates a steadfast adherence to the corporate ideology.

Corporations are required, by design, to operate against the common good in order to maintain themselves. This is the way that corporate CEOs can be "good guys" and still participate in a terrible anti-human system. They can honestly make the argument that "they have no choice, it is just the system that we live in."

This brings to mind a speech by Noam Chomsky, where he makes a comparison of today's corporate capitalist system to the institution of slavery:

During the times of slavery, there may have been slave owners who were very kind to their slaves, fed them well, did not beat them, etc. These individuals may have been very good and decent men, but it does not change the fact that the system under which they were operating was monstrous and evil.

It is exactly the same with the Fortune 500 companies. Some CEOs might be genuinely great guys but the corporate system under which they all operate is in fact monstrous and in direct opposition to the progress of both science and medicine.

So it is not surprising at all that people are very suspicious of not only vaccines, but everything that the modern-day medical establishment peddles forth.
"One measures a circle, beginning anywhere." -Charles Fort
User avatar
BrandonD
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Medication time.

Postby slimmouse » Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:13 pm

BrandonD » 17 Mar 2014 23:19 wrote:
So it is not surprising at all that people are very suspicious of not only vaccines, but everything that the modern-day medical establishment peddles forth.


For anyone even remotely concsious of the fundamental requrirements of the Fortune 500 gang, it should be nothing less than bleeding obvious that what they are selling will never, by neccesity, cure anything.

The trouble it seems is that not enough people have the time to get their heads around the con.

I should of course emphasise that such mental incapacity has been more than ably assisted by an education that encourages people to put their faith in people with white coats and qualifications, If my own experience of the education system is anything to go by, then I'd be extremely careful.

And the proof is of course in the pudding.

These "medical" products theyre peddling are almost like buying their own "new and improved" Soap Powder.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re:The chemical 'cure'

Postby Sounder » Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/cd ... a-vaccine/

.......The new study confirms the findings of a previous study by Goldman (2013 Hum Exp Toxicol 32:464). Using CDC’s VAERS database, Goldman showed a similar uptick in spontaneous abortions due to the flu shot, specifically during the time when pregnant women were receiving both the seasonal flu shot and the pandemic H1N1 flu shot. In fact, the rate of miscarriages increased 11-fold in 2009 when the H1N1 vaccine was added to the recommended schedule. During this time period, pregnant women who received both shots were typically exposed to 50 micrograms of mercury via thimerosal.

The maternal flu shot, given specifically in the first trimester of pregnancy, has also recently been implicated in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in a paper by Zerbo et al. (2017 JAMA Pediatrics 171: e163609) from insurance giant Northern California Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser’s data showed that those women who received the seasonal flu vaccine (between 2000 and 2010, when the majority of vaccines distributed contained thimerosal) were 25% more likely to give birth to a child who would later be diagnosed with ASD. This result was also statistically significant. See this interview from a mother describing her miscarriage immediately following a flu shot. The aborted child’s twin was born with severe autism.......
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Medication time.

Postby identity » Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:55 pm

The maternal flu shot, given specifically in the first trimester of pregnancy, has also recently been implicated in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in a paper by Zerbo et al. (2017 JAMA Pediatrics 171: e163609) from insurance giant Northern California Kaiser Permanente. [...] The aborted child’s twin was born with severe autism.......


Junk science. And besides, what's a few cases of spontaneous abortion or ASD next to the billions of lives that are rendered long and productive by these wonder drugs???
We should never forget Galileo being put before the Inquisition.
It would be even worse if we allowed scientific orthodoxy to become the Inquisition.

Richard Smith, Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal 1991-2004,
in a published letter to Nature
identity
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:00 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Medication time.

Postby DrEvil » Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:39 pm

Question Is there an association between maternal influenza infection and vaccination and autism risk?

Findings In a cohort study of 196 929 children, of whom 3103 had austism spectrum disorder, maternal influenza infection during pregnancy was not associated with increased autism risk. There was a suggestion of increased risk of autism spectrum disorders among children whose mothers received an influenza vaccination during their first trimester, but the association was statistically insignificant after adjusting for multiple comparisons, indicating that the finding could be due to chance.

Meaning Our findings do not call for vaccine policy or practice changes but do suggest the need for additional studies.


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamape ... ct/2587559
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Medication time.

Postby Sounder » Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:32 am

'Clients' are no more than profit centers in the current 'health' system.

http://www.pharmamyths.net/


5 MYTHS & PILLARS OF CURRENT PHARMACEUTICAL POLICY

1. "Most new drugs are 'life-saving' and must be rushed to patients who need them."


a. Most new drugs not for life-threatening conditions. Perhaps 10 percent.

b. Independent reviewers judge about 90% new drug products as little or no better against clinical measures of improvement or less harm. Consistent pattern for 40 yrs

c. Therefore about 1% new drugs would be “life-saving.” (10% x 10% = 1%)

d. Most R&D spent on developing minor variations. Most marketing spent on them.

e. Inverse Benefit Law of widespread marketing that dilutes benefits and proliferates risks of harms.



2. "The FDA screens out unsafe and ineffective drugs. Approved drugs are safe and effective."


a. Better than placebo means new drugs may be less effective than existing ones. No useful evidence for prescribing or how new drug compares to others.

b. Non-inferior means new drugs are no worse than -20% the comparator drug. No useful evidence on how superior new drugs are, if they are.

c. Evidence on risks of harms in minimal. From company trials designed to minimize evidence of harms.

d. All evidence on a carefully chosen, ideal population most likely to benefit and not have adverse reactions. Real patients and real patterns of use usually less beneficial and more harmful.

e. Since 90% of new drug products are little or no better, they cannot be safe.

f. Aside from in-class choice, are the FDA and EMA flooding the market with ineffective, unsafe drugs?



3. An epidemic of harmful side effects (with few offsetting benefits).


a. the 4th leading cause of death. About 113,000 deaths just in hospitalized patients.

b. About 2.5 million serious reactions and 1.7 million hospitalizations.

c. About 50 million adverse reactions, mostly mild but impair performance & judgment

d. A major cause of falls, accidents, anti-social behaviors.

e. Risks of harm increase through cascade effect and take multiple drugs.

f. Harmful side effects generate more sales.




4. Market is flooded with new drug products of little or no advantage that consume 80% of increased pharmaceutical costs. Harmful side effects generate more sales.


a. A self-reinforcing syndrome: high prices, protected by government from free market competition, fund the development of these drugs and their costly marketing, which generate more revenues to develop more of these drugs.



5. “US prices have to be high to recover $1.7 billion in R&D costs per new drug and recover what lower prices abroad do not recover.”


a. The $1.7 billion figure is inflated from unverifiable R&D costs which companies have strong incentives to inflate from the start. Half the “costs” are estimated profits that companies would have made if they had not invested in R&D for new products vital for their survival. Another half are costs subsidized by taxpayers. Then the $1.7 billion estimate is based on the most costly 20 percent of new drugs but attributed to all drugs – a three-fold distortion. Just these three factors mean you divide by 12 to get $0.14 billion. Another third of the total comes from backing in a high amount for the unknown cost of discovery. And there’s more… See “Demythologizing the high costs…”

b. The BMJ article “Foreign free riders…” drew on data from the National Science Foundation, companies and government to conclude that companies earn back all expenses and make a profit at Canadian and European prices. US high prices simply make extra profits from government protections from free-market competition.

c. The USA is the primary market where drug companies raise prices each year on last year’s models because they are protected from free-market competition.

d. Pharmaceutical companies will make solid profits under bundled payments that rein in high prices.

e. Cancer drugs should be relatively cheap. First, most R&D is paid for by others, not companies. Second, trials are smaller and shorter than for other drugs. Third, in most cases we have no verifiable evidence that manufacturing costs are higher. Why, then, are cancer drugs priced higher than statin drugs? Most cancer drugs cause serious harms and provide little additional benefit, with exceptions.




+++++
Donald Light is a professor of comparative health care at Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine. He is an economic and organizational sociologist who compares health care systems and analyzes health care policies. He has written about the history and dynamics of health care markets and health care insurance, countervailing powers, the medical profession, immigrants and health care, and global justice.

As a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics, Light is concerned about the high prices of medicines and barriers to their access. His research aims to provide a demythologized, more realistic account of costs, relative effectiveness and harms, and innovation than is promoted by commercial interests and sponsored academics. He is concerned that current incentives, laws, and regulations encourage companies to develop many new drugs with few advantages, rather than focusing on really superior new drugs. In the long run, this does not serve the major companies or society well.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Medication time.

Postby Sounder » Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:33 am

The vaccine industry gets a free ride without having to properly test their product. Japan has the most restrictive attitude toward vaccines and their country has both the lowest infant mortality rate and the longest lifespans.

Trans-humanism is nothing but putting faith in the chemical control of life.

Faith for those that cannot see past their nose.

Here lies fascism.

https://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/11/05/ ... -children/

NYU Professor Says Parents Have No Right to Refuse Vaccines for Their Children
November 5, 2018


Marco Cáceres, Guest
Waking Times

In a recent video commentary published in Medscape, New York University professor Arthur L. Caplan, PhD offered his views on the question of whether children have “vaccination rights.”

Dr. Caplan thinks that what he defines as the “vaccination rights” of minor children supersede the legal right of their parents to exercise informed consent to vaccination on their children’s behalf if a parent elects to decline one or more government recommended vaccines for whatever reason. He claims that vaccinating children represents a higher moral imperative than respecting the informed consent rights of parents.

“I want to point out a moral stance that I don’t think has gotten enough attention, which is that every child has the right to be vaccinated,” said Caplan. “We keep talking about parents’ right to say yes or no, to avoid mandates or requirements, or to do what they choose to do. Someone has to speak up and say, ‘Well, what about the kids? Don’t they have any rights?’”

Caplan believes that if parents refuse to vaccinate their kids the government has the right to override the legal right of parents to make medical care decisions for their children. Caplan argues that the government has the duty to vaccinate the children without the consent of the parents and by force, if need be. “If the parents won’t do it, I think it’s the responsibility of the state or the government to do it,” said Caplan. “The presumption should be not listening to what parents who don’t want to vaccinate are saying, but starting out with a presumption that kids have a right to fight off deadly diseases, that kids who can’t be vaccinated have a right to protection. How do we move public policy forward from there?”1

Attempts to answer Caplan’s question about how to “move public policy forward” on the issue of parental rights regarding vaccination of their children are already well underway in the United States. Legislation has been introduced in states like California that would seek to give government the right to make health care decisions for children, even against the wishes of their parents, if the state deems the decisions to be in the best interests of the children.

Such legislation would also allow government authorities to take legal physical custody of children in cases where parents refuse to comply with mandates forcing or coercing them to vaccinate their children.

The thrust of Caplan’s thought process is that, at least when it comes to vaccination of children, parents should be stripped of their informed consent rights. Apparently, Caplan takes the view that the informed health care decisions that parents make for their children are just not relevant if those decisions conflict with government policy.

But it is precisely this “long held legal right to make informed, voluntary decisions about pharmaceutical products and medical procedures that carry risks for their children,” says Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), that is “all that stands between parents and exploitation of their children by those in positions of power in society with a personal or professional vested interest in forcing every child to use pharmaceutical products that are not safe or effective for every child.”
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Medication time.

Postby identity » Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:25 pm

'Serial' flu shots may limit body's ability to fight virus in future: researchers

Published Saturday, November 5, 2016 8:01PM EDT

Few debates are as divisive in Canada.
Every year, those who swear by the influenza vaccine eagerly get jabbed. Others vehemently maintain that flu shots are either useless or do more harm than good. The latter camp, however, may now have some additional ammunition.
Although doctors maintain that flu shots are life-savers that everyone should receive, some researchers are uncovering hints that "serial vaccination" -- that is, consistently receiving annual flu shots -- may in fact limit one's ability to fight the virus in the future.
"Nothing surprises me anymore with influenza," Dr. Danuta Skowronski, an epidemiologist at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, told CTV News. "It's such a changeable virus."

Although flu season typically starts in late November and peaks towards the end of December, influenza cases have already been reported across Canada, with spikes occurring over the past month in southern British Columbia, western Manitoba and southwestern Ontario though numbers remain low.
New evidence, however, is raising the spectre that the more influenza vaccinations you receive in your lifetime, the less protection you have from the virus in subsequent seasons.
Skowronski published a study earlier this year showing that people who were vaccinated consecutively in 2012, 2013 and 2014 appeared to have a higher risk of being infected with new strains of the flu.
"If we're seeing some signals of declining vaccine protection, we want to respond to that -- but we don't want to overreact," Skowronski cautiously says.

Skowronski's study, however, is one of several that suggest a similar troubling pattern.
In the aftermath of 2009's H1N1 flu epidemic, the Canadian flu surveillance network reported that Canadians who had received a flu shot in late 2008 were between 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to contract an H1N1 infection that required medical attention, compared with those who didn't get a shot.

A more recent report even states that during the 2014-2015 flu season, those who had not been vaccinated the previous year were more likely to benefit from flu shots than those who received them two years in a row.
To discuss these troubling findings, Skowronski convened a meeting in Vancouver in mid-October with 40 scientists from around the world.
"The actual implications of current findings are unclear -- but important enough to warrant investigation -- to differentiate signal from noise," Dr. Mark Loeb, a scientist with McMaster University who is conducting research into the question, said in an email to CTV News.

The flu vaccine works by producing antibodies that can repel only a particular strain of influenza. Scientists alter the vaccine on an annual basis to better combat the ever-changing virus. The 2014-2015 flu season, however, was particularly bad in terms of the vaccine's usefulness. In Canada, its effectiveness was rated at a meagre nine per cent that season.

Although more research is needed, it's now believed that annual flu shots may make it harder for the immune system to fight off new strains of the virus that show up after immunization. More studies are underway in Canada, the U.S. and Europe to determine this. Quebec, however, has already put its multi-million dollar flu vaccination program under the microscope.

"The Ministry wants to know what were the findings and how can we optimize the program for the province," Dr. Gaston De Serres of Quebec's public health institute told CTV News in an email.
In the interim, doctors maintain that the flu shot is a life-saver and that everyone -- especially seniors, children under the age of two and people suffering from chronic medical conditions -- should continue receiving them.
"I think it would be premature and possibly even dangerous, frankly, for us to make strong statements in either direction, or a radical policy change, on the basis of these findings," Skowronski says.
"It would be hazardous for those individuals to stop getting the influenza vaccine on the basis of these early signals."
Such signals are so recent that public health officials don't yet know if they are real or scientific red herrings. Until more conclusive evidence is established, annual flu shot campaigns will remain unchanged.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/serial-flu-shots-may-limit-body-s-ability-to-fight-virus-in-future-researchers-1.3147903
We should never forget Galileo being put before the Inquisition.
It would be even worse if we allowed scientific orthodoxy to become the Inquisition.

Richard Smith, Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal 1991-2004,
in a published letter to Nature
identity
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:00 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests