Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2017 7:10 PM
270 online now:
dwise1, Faith, jar, JonF (4 members, 266 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,393 Year: 28,999/21,208 Month: 1,065/1,847 Week: 440/475 Day: 103/102 Hour: 2/8

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
22Next
Author Topic:   "Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions
granpa
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 226 of 316 (821628)
10-09-2017 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by New Cat's Eye
10-09-2017 9:42 PM


Re: the fungus guy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2017 9:42 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2017 9:54 PM granpa has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 227 of 316 (821634)
10-09-2017 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by granpa
10-09-2017 9:46 PM


Re: the fungus guy

Let me know if/when you care to make a point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by granpa, posted 10-09-2017 9:46 PM granpa has not yet responded

  
granpa
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


(1)
Message 228 of 316 (821635)
10-09-2017 9:55 PM


My point was obvious to anybody with a brain. He said amino acids are acids. But in fact each one contains both and a base and an acid. And I posted an image of the molecular structure to prove it

I was trying to be helpful but I guess you people just want to argue

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2017 10:22 PM granpa has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 229 of 316 (821645)
10-09-2017 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by granpa
10-09-2017 9:55 PM


He said amino acids are acids. But in fact each one contains both and a base and an acid.

They can still be acidic though...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by granpa, posted 10-09-2017 9:55 PM granpa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by granpa, posted 10-09-2017 10:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
granpa
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


(1)
Message 230 of 316 (821649)
10-09-2017 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by New Cat's Eye
10-09-2017 10:22 PM


Yes they can.
Histones are basic though
This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2017 10:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26754
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 231 of 316 (821658)
10-10-2017 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by New Cat's Eye
10-09-2017 9:07 PM


Re: the fungus guy
So, your body is made of tissues. Those are made of proteins. Proteins are made of amino acids.

You are literally made of acids. If your body became alkaline you would die - from the acids you are made of turning into salts.

Your stomach is full of really strong acid. Any alkaline food you eat will be immediately neutralized and no longer be alkaline - you can't make your body more alkaline, in general, and you cannot make it more alkaline with food or water.

Well, that was quite a blast of assertions that mostly sound to me like some kind of logic game. A plant-based diet just does increase alkalinity in the body, and since that diet has many beneficial effects on health the alkalinity is regarded as a healthy factor in itself. Or you could say it decreases acidity.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2017 9:07 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-11-2017 3:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 232 of 316 (821660)
10-10-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Granny Magda
10-09-2017 8:08 AM


Re: Truth About Cancer Conference is over
The alt-med industry on the other hand is rolling in cash. Estimates online value the industry at 30 to 200 billion dollars. If they want to test their nonsense, they can. But they rarely do. Worse, when something is debunked, they just carry on with it as though nothing had happened.

Just as a point of comparison this study shows that only 48% of cancer treatment drugs approved for use by the European Medicines Agency from 2009-2013 have any discernible positive affects and yet they continue to be prescribed with certainty and usually with a giant price tag.

http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4530

quote:
This systematic evaluation of oncology drug approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most of the drugs (39/68, 57%) entered the market without evidence of improved survival or quality of life. At a minimum 3.3 years after market entry, there was still no conclusive evidence that 33 of these 39 cancer drugs either extended or improved life. Our findings suggest it is extremely rare for new studies or follow-up analyses of pivotal trials in the postmarketing period to report results confirming that new cancer drugs have a positive impact on the two most important outcomes for patients—survival and quality of life. When survival gains over existing treatment options or placebo were shown, they were often marginal and judged to be clinically meaningful in less than half (11/23, 48%) of all cases.

https://health.usnews.com/...ising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

quote:
Cancer drug costs fluctuate all the time, increasing and decreasing whenever the manufacturer sees fit to change the price. Take Novartis' leukemia drug Gleevec, which cost $24,000 in 2001 when it was approved as a breakthrough drug; now it costs $90,000, according to Forbes. Unfortunately for patients, the cost has little to do with efficacy of the drug or its safety.

So it would seem that conventional medicine has no problem charging people $200k/yr for treatments that work less than half of the time and come with a long list of serious side effects. The pharmaceutical industry is no shining example of how we should provide compassionate effective care.

Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Granny Magda, posted 10-09-2017 8:08 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Granny Magda, posted 10-11-2017 3:35 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2353
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 233 of 316 (821727)
10-11-2017 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
10-09-2017 5:13 PM


Re: the fungus guy
I looked at Bollinger's site and failed to find the statistic you are talking about.

It's here --> http://www.cancertruth.info/

You were probably looking at another of his sites, Bollinger has a few. For the record;

quote:
“Chemo has a 97% fatality rate”...

It has been scientifically proven to fatally poison several hundred thousand people each and every year. Did you know that the overall success rate for most cancers treated with the chemotherapy is a paltry 3%? In other words...

The truth is: most of the conventional methods, including all sorts of drugs, radiation and surgeries don't work and they are less effective than ever before and will make your Cancer and your health worse in the long run! Why?

Because unless you regain a healthy immune system the cancer will return.


Faith, in Message 221 writes:

I don't see that anybody is lying to cancer patients. I don't even see anyone discouraging conventional treatment, though there may be some that go overboard that I've missed.

Well I guess you've seen it now, unless you're going to tell me that claiming a 97% kill rate for chemo is somehow not discouraging people from taking chemo.

Faith, in Message 221 writes:

Most are just suggesting that "overdosing on nutrition" be tried when there is still time for it to see if it works before going ahead with the chemo or whatever, and some of the testimonials include both standard treatment and nutritional treatments.

Not true in Ty Bollinger's case. He explicitly encourages people to refuse chemotherapy, radiotherapy and (most worryingly of all) even surgery. This is exactly the sort of irresponsible behaviour that gets people killed.

Again, just for the record, Bollinger's claims are purest poppycock. The 97% claim in particular is blatantly insane and the reality is easy to check up. Bollinger has no excuse for this kind of nonsense. He's a terrible, terrible source for anyone to be relying on. At the most generous possible assessment, he's a insane idiot. At a less generous assessment, he's a lying asshole.

But I came back to comment on the fungus guy. I looked him up too and at first glance his idea does look pretty wacky.

Second glance too.

But a review of his book suggested that the idea of baking soda simply agrees with the general understanding that cancer requires an acidic body environment to grow and that whatever you can do to make it slightly alkaline will discourage the growth of cancer. I don't know if this is something only the "alt-med" people say or it's common knowledge, but it was said a lot by many at the conference

That is not a general understanding, it's an alt-med thing. It's also completely untrue.

But someone also pointed out that it depends on where the cancer is located whether baking soda can even reach it.

Indeed. Bio-availability is the key concept here, not to mention potential side effects.

Also I don't get the connection with candida yet.

Well you see, this is really in-depth, technical science stuff, so buckle up...

Candida is white. And cancer is white.

That's it. Really! That's it! Never mind that cancer isn't necessarily white. Or that fungus isn't necessarily white either. Simoncini really is a fruitcake's fruitcake.

But I've had an interesting personal experience recently I'd like to report. I've been sort of trying the high starch diet I recently learned about, not really following their protocol but making potatoes my main food followed by salad and carrot juice, though I deviate into other things that are off the diet too so I can't say I'm really following it. For one thing fat is not allowed and I really can't eat potatoes or salad without olive oil at least.

Anyway, I started noticing after a few days that I no longer had the candida rash I sometimes get on my abdomen these days (due to slightly high blood sugar that isn't quite Type 2 diabetes yet and I hope won't ever be). I usually use Nystatin to cure it, but maybe potatoes will do it? '

Huh. Weird. Well I'm glad you're feeling better at any rate, skin rashes can be a real pain. For my money it's more likely that the problem was being exacerbated by something that you have now stopped eating, rather than being cured by something you started eating, but hey, what do I know...

Incidentally, diabetes very much is something that can be prevented and/or managed by diet. Any mainstream doctor will tell you this, there's nothing "alternative" about it. Alt-med cranks do not have an exclusive on dietary interventions.

Alkaline potatoes, alkaline carrots

No, that's not right. Carrots and potatoes have a ph of around 5. That makes them comparatively low acid as far as foods go, but that's still acid. It's not very acid, but it's more acidic than neutral. The whole alkaline thing is a red herring anyway.

Even if he's wrong in some important way I have the impression there is logic to his thinking.

He's wrong in every possible way. Tullio Simoncini is a total loony and not a reputable source. His presence robs any venue where he appears of a great deal of credibility. I see from your follow-on post that you are aware of how dangerous he is. I don't see why you would want to salvage anything from this mess. I certainly don't see why Ty Bollinger would invite Simoncini to talk at his cancer conference. Well, not unless Bollinger were as quacky as Simoncini is.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 10-09-2017 5:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 10-12-2017 10:32 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2353
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 234 of 316 (821729)
10-11-2017 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by ProtoTypical
10-10-2017 8:42 AM


Re: Truth About Cancer Conference is over
Hi ProtoTypical,

The pharmaceutical industry is no shining example of how we should provide compassionate effective care.

Oh for sure! Big Pharma sucks that's for certain. And it doesn't stop there. Anti-depressants have also been singled out for major criticism.

On the other hand, take a look at this, a response to the paper you cited;

quote:
However, in order to approve a treatment for use, the European Medicines Agency must conclude that the benefits of introducing a new treatment outweigh the risks. So, how can we be sure that only cancer treatments that are clinically and cost effective become available in the NHS? How do we balance the demand for early access to innovative treatments with the concern that public funds could be wasted? It’s a tough job but one that NICE relishes.

In 2016, there were some important changes to the way we appraised cancer medicines, and NICE and NHS England starting working together much more closely. The Cancer Drugs Fund was reformed to become a managed access fund for promising treatments with significant clinical uncertainty. This means that before a medicine is made available via the Cancer Drugs Fund, a managed access agreement is drawn up. It specifies the data that will be collected to address the uncertainty. The price the NHS pays during the managed access period reflects the level of uncertainty in the evidence. Afterwards, NICE reviews its guidance in light of the new evidence to decide if the treatment can be made routinely available in the NHS.


So it's not like nothing is being done to address this kind of issue. This stands in stark contrast to the world of alt-med quackery, where nothing is ever disproved, no concept is too insane and very, very little testing (like the study you cited) is ever done.

This is why I think that everyone who is in any way involved in medicine, alternative or otherwise, ought to be in the business of doing science based medicine. If anyone is wondering what I mean by science based medicine, it's outlined rather nicely at, er, sciencebasedmedicine.org. That's the gold standard. Anything less than that is letting patients down. Alt-med falls way, way short of this standard.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by ProtoTypical, posted 10-10-2017 8:42 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


(3)
Message 235 of 316 (821731)
10-11-2017 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
10-10-2017 7:33 AM


Re: the fungus guy
Well, that was quite a blast of assertions that mostly sound to me like some kind of logic game.

They're true statements and logical. The argument is sound.

A plant-based diet just does increase alkalinity in the body,

Funny how you call it a game and then immediately write an unsupported assertion yourself. Not to mention that your assertion is false.

The pH of skin is around 5. Your skin is acidic. If it became alkaline then you would have a serious problem.

Or you could say it decreases acidity.

If you owe someone $100 and you pay them back $10 of it - it'd be silly to say that you had ten more dollars. You're still $90 in the hole - you don't have any money.

Decreasing the acidity of a solution some while still having it be acidic is not really an increase in alkalinity in the sense of you actually having the alkalinity. It's neutralized and the solution is still acidic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 10-10-2017 7:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26754
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 236 of 316 (821787)
10-12-2017 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Granny Magda
10-11-2017 3:19 PM


The evidence isn't so hot on either side
I know you think Bollinger is lying or just crazy but I'm still willing to hold out the possibility that he calculated his statistic from sources that you read differently, that he could be wrong but that he is most likely not lying or trying to deceive anyone, that he believes it. It would help if he'd spelled out his thinking of course and I wish he had.

But this is a problem on both sides of this. As ProtoTypical pointed out, the defenders of the conventional treatments aren't supporting their claims either, but go on prescribing stuff that doesn't work.

I agree that it would be wonderful if every claim of treatment efficacy on both sides was carefully tested by an independent agency. I really wish that were always the case, because we need to know what we are being given so that we have a reasonable choice when we need help.

You don't even try to support your claim that the idea that alkalinity is unfriendly to cancer is "completely untrue." Have there been any studies that confirm this claim?

Even someone who is completely wrong may have good motives you know, and mistakes can happen too, and whose job is it to police these things? First there should be some definite proof that a claim is wrong and then there should be legal consequences if it's proved wrong and yet continues to be practiced.

Since you even acknowledge that "Big Pharma" isn't exactly trustworthy, why are you objecting to others who are of the same opinion? Why shouldn't there be attempts to treat diseases without the poisons of most drugs? Especially since most of the "alt-med" treatments are pretty benign natural nutritional treatments?

And unfortunately there really is some reason to think research has been fudged to justify Big Pharma's claims, which are just as deadly as any claims made by the alt-med people it seems to me, and once all the facts of the efficacy of standard treatment are shown my guess would be it has a far worse record than the nutrition movement. Obviously what is needed is a completely independent agency to test these things. But since Big Money can often buy the results of research, and Big Money could presumably be on either side, it would have to be a really well designed system.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : typos

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Granny Magda, posted 10-11-2017 3:19 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Granny Magda, posted 10-13-2017 3:16 PM Faith has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2353
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 237 of 316 (821844)
10-13-2017 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
10-12-2017 10:32 AM


Re: The evidence isn't so hot on either side
I know you think Bollinger is lying or just crazy but I'm still willing to hold out the possibility that he calculated his statistic from sources that you read differently, that he could be wrong but that he is most likely not lying or trying to deceive anyone, that he believes it. It would help if he'd spelled out his thinking of course and I wish he had.

It ought to be obvious to any sane person that the statistic he cites is batshit crazy and incompatible with reality. There are no circumstances under which it is even remotely plausible. It's very easy to find out how many people survive cancer and even a cursory examination of the facts would tell you that a 97% kill-rate is nonsense. Heck, even basic common sense should be able to sniff out that rat.

Ultimately, it hardly matters whether Bollinger is lying or insane. The bottom line is that he is issuing falsehoods that could cost people their lives. He routinely tells people that chemo will kill them. That's bullshit. He discourages cancer patients from opting for surgery, when surgery is the primary treatment for most cancers. All of this is grossly irresponsible and extremely dangerous. He is a crank and you should not be spreading his garbage.

But this is a problem on both sides of this. As ProtoTypical pointed out, the defenders of the conventional treatments aren't supporting their claims either, but go on prescribing stuff that doesn't work.

That is not what ProtTypical pointed out at all. Even the study he cited said that 48% of drugs had a meaningful effect on survival beyond that offered by existing medications. Can alt-med match that? Can you show me even one alt-med cancer cure with that kind of success rate? No you cannot.

Conventional medicine has eliminated entire diseases, raised life expectancy and brought cancer survival rates to an all-time high. Alt-med has achieved nothing at all. Ask yourself, would alt-med practitioners engage in the kind of self-criticism that takes place in Proto's cited paper? Of course not!

I agree that it would be wonderful if every claim of treatment efficacy on both sides was carefully tested by an independent agency.

That's socialism!

You don't even try to support your claim that the idea that alkalinity is unfriendly to cancer is "completely untrue."

Huh? Faith, you brought up the whole alkalinity thing and you didn't bother to present a shred of evidence for it. It's your pet theory, why don't you try providing some evidence.

New Cat's Eye has already shown you why this cannot possibly be true. Your body is acidic. If it were alkaline, you would die.

You don't even try to support your claim that the idea that alkalinity is unfriendly to cancer is "completely untrue." Have there been any studies that confirm this claim?

The claim has zero prior plausibility due to its being based upon gross misunderstandings and misrepresentations. No-one is going to test it in order to debunk it, for the same reason that no-one is going to test whether unicorn farts cure cancer. It's just mad rubbish, made up by loonies and it is in contradiction of the most basic facts of biology.

It's not the job of real medical scientists to debunk every idea that pops into the heads of nutters. That would be a waste of valuable time and resources. The onus is upon the alt-med proponents to prove their own stupid theory.

Since you even acknowledge that "Big Pharma" isn't exactly trustworthy, why are you objecting to others who are of the same opinion?

They're not of the same opinion. Bollinger claims that chemo will almost certainly kill you. That's just not true. Mike Adams claims that chemo will kill you. That's not true.

I have no objection to valid criticisms of the pharmaceutical industry or of medical practice in general. I merely object to people who make insane claims, endanger patients and profit from exploiting the gullible.

Why shouldn't there be attempts to treat diseases without the poisons of most drugs?

In the case of cancer? Because surgery and other conventional therapies represent the patients best chance of survival. In some cases, they confer an extremely high chance of survival (98% survival over five years for testicular cancer for example). In many cases, they are the patient's only chance of survival. Why would any sane person turn that down in order to gamble on some implausible magic potion?

Especially since most of the "alt-med" treatments are pretty benign natural nutritional treatments?

They can be as benign as they like. Having no side effects is nice, but if they have no curative properties, choosing them over real medicine will kill you.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 10-12-2017 10:32 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 3:40 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26754
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 238 of 316 (821846)
10-13-2017 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Granny Magda
10-13-2017 3:16 PM


Re: The evidence isn't so hot on either side
You talk an aggressive (and slanderous) line but I don't find it convincing Granny. I'm going with carrot juice and whatever else is on the diet if I have to choose.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Granny Magda, posted 10-13-2017 3:16 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-13-2017 3:54 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 240 by Granny Magda, posted 10-13-2017 4:52 PM Faith has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 239 of 316 (821849)
10-13-2017 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
10-13-2017 3:40 PM


Re: The evidence isn't so hot on either side
...I don't find it convincing Granny. I'm going with carrot juice and whatever else is on the diet if I have to choose.

Good! Eat your vegetables. It'll help.

Just don't think that you're making your body alkaline - that's retarded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 3:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2353
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 240 of 316 (821853)
10-13-2017 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
10-13-2017 3:40 PM


Re: The evidence isn't so hot on either side
You talk an aggressive (and slanderous) line but I don't find it convincing Granny.

Slander is for things that are not true. (Also, since I am nothing if not pedantic, slander is for oral defamation. In writing it's libel. I take an aggressive and libellous line. Just sayin'.)

Surgery is the primary therapeutic intervention for cancerous tumours. This is a fact.

Surgery saves lives. This is a fact.

Ty Bollinger, Mike Adams and their ilk actively seek to dissuade cancer patients from undergoing surgery. This is a fact.

I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that these people are placing cancer patients' lives at risk. Of course you are free to believe what you wish, but given that you have made no attempt to dispute any of these facts, I really don't see what other conclusion you could reach.

I'm going with carrot juice and whatever else is on the diet if I have to choose.

Well for starters, as far as we know, you don't have cancer. So, yeah, sure, whatever. Go crazy. Drink carrot juice until you're as orange as Trump. That's going to be fine if you don't have cancer.

For those who do have cancer however, surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy have a proven track record of saving lives. Spurn them at your peril.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 3:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 5:21 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
22Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017