It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nagalase and vaccines and cancer and autism... oh crap!

page: 3
62
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: cooperton

The Yamamoto study has been retracted.

I'm not saying this stuff isn't something to look into -- but let's be careful about citing sources that have been retracted due to poor scientific methods.


It is true that three (of six) of Dr. Yamamoto's studies have been retracted after being challenged by the AntiCancer Fund. The conclusions of the papers were not disproven; protocol and the safety of the product was challenged. Here is a list at PubMed of Dr. Yamamoto's published studies on GcMAF, including those retracted. Here is a list of all studies regarding GcMAF at PubMed.

The challenge to Yamamoto's papers also included a concern for the source of the GcMAF and its safety for patients. It may be "natural," but there is still much potential for risk to patients. How was the GcMAF collected, prepared, stored, tested, etc.? I have seen references that the studies were not conducted in the USA, which may (or may not) explain the discrepancies in protocol, and how Yamamoto obtained the GcMAF since it's not available (legally) here.

Yamamoto has since turned his research and patents over to a company called Efranet in Israel. They are currently recruiting patients for a clinical study of GcMAF.. This is the same clinical study referenced by the AntiCancer Fund.




posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: imd12c4funn
a reply to: MystikMushroom

So no reason to kill doctors if it's a non-issue and scientifically flawed.
2nd


I'm sorry your thread was closed. I hope you'll stick around and keep discussing the subject.

The science behind the GcMAF is sound -- at least as far as it goes. Dr. Yamamoto did not "invent" GcMAF, or even discover it. It is a part of our immune system and well established. The problem is getting the clinical studies done to learn, tweak and improve our understanding of it how it works, and the best way to make it work in bodies where it is not.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: imd12c4funn

I'm not saying the entire substance is scientifically flawed, but I've been reading through cancer forums and I can't find anyone that's had any positive results from this stuff. I see a lot of hopeful people, and a lot of money being spent, but I haven't seen an overwhelming number of success stories.


Again, very true. I also read many reports from users who claimed little to no benefit from the GcMAF injections. Was it a faulty product? A faulty treatment protocol? We don't know.


What I am seeing is that this stuff is insanely cheap to make, and the dose is in the nanogram range. For that little amount of active ingredient, the stuff should be a lot cheaper.


Yes, indeed. It makes one wonder how much this has to do with medical researchers more interested in finding a way to patent and market their research than curing patients. And/or those who already have patents trying to stop new patents that will essentially render their patents worthless. Especially because the GcMAF is a natural substance, and cannot be patented. So researchers can only patent (and profit from) related processes and procedures.


From what I've read, it seems the probiotic route would be the cheapest and most effective way to go.

I'm a big fan of probiotics, they do all kinds of things -- and I think we're barley scratching the surface of their worth. But $150 an injection for a few nanograms of gcmaf? I'd rather eat some yogurt or take a good probiotic.


Yes! Probiotics definitely seem the way to go... and cannabis products. Probably fats and oils too, although I haven't read as much about those yet. It seems to me the best healing option is always natural substances that give our bodies what they need to heal themselves. Could it really be as simple as producing yogurt with high concentrations of specific strains of probiotics? From what I've read, it is the lacto and bifido strains which are most effective.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: RobinB022

My heart goes out to you. Having dealt with a MRSA/sepsis, I understand better than I ever wanted!!! Let's hope this research is the beginning of the end of such suffering and misery for us all.

From what I've read (and I'll try to find some links later), probiotics and cannabis are showing more and more promise, more and more healing properties, with every study done. From what I've read, it's the lacto and bifido strains of probiotics that "eat" away the biofilm around viruses, etc., and allow the white cells (macrophages) to "eat" the virus. It couldn't hurt to eat more yogurt -- just make sure the yogurt includes active cultures!

You might also try googling "high CBD cannabis oil" and your specific health issues to see what, if any, research has been done, and if it will help. The high CBD oils have no THC, so no psychoactive effects... in other words, it won't get you high, and is legal in all 50 states.

Good luck!!!



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
There was lots of talk about GcMaf in the local news earlier this year, it seems that it has quite the following in the Channel Islands. I didn't learn much about it from the rag, but having read a couple of threads about it here this morning it's certainly peaked my interest. I study the endocannabinoid system, cannabinoid pharmacodynamics and the potential applications of phytocannabinoids in the treatment of various diseases, so the potential here has me tickled somewhat. I'm off to read some more on this,


'GcMaf Guernsey' search results



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: MerkabaTribeEntity

I study the endocannabinoid system, cannabinoid pharmacodynamics and the potential applications of phytocannabinoids in the treatment of various diseases, so the potential here has me tickled somewhat. I'm off to read some more on this,


That's exciting stuff! I hope you'll share your findings with us one day!!!



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
So while doing more research on GcMAF treatment, I came across the website offering nagalase testing, with much (MUCH!) better explanation/description of exactly what GcMAF is than I have been able to offer:


The Gc-Protein has a sugar side chain consisting of three sugar molecules , namely N – acetyl galactosamine , galactose, and sialic acid a so-called “tri- saccharide” (= “triple sugar”). When sialic acid and galactose are removed from this tri- saccharide, N -acetyl- galactosamine remains as a single sugar moiety. For Gc-Protein modified in this manner a strong activating effect on macrophages has been described: this modified Gc-Protein is a “Macrophage-Activating Factor”, abbreviated as “MAF”. More specifically the partially de-glycosylated Gc protein -derived macrophage-activating molecule is called “Gc -MAF” ( Saharuddin et al. 2002 Kuchiike et al. , 2013 Kisker et al. 2003)



How is Nagalase thought to inactivate Gc-MAF?

The enzyme “Nagalase” completely eliminates the sugar side chain of the Gc protein: the thus-modified Gc protein can no longer be converted to Gc MAF, its immune-stimulatory effect is no longer available. In other words, the effect of Nagalase on Gc Protein prevents the formation Gc -MAF. Insofar, tumor-derived Nagalase may have immune-suppressive properties.


More interesting -- and worrisome -- is this:


Artificially produced Gc-MAF for treating diseases

When the macrophage activating activity of Gc-MAF became known, research was conducted towards synthetic production of Gc MAF and its use as an immune-stimulating agent. The therapy with artificial GcMAF is thought to benefit from the fact that artificial GcMAF cannot be inactivated by Nagalase. Accordingly, methods have been developed for in vitro production of Gc-MAF which is then administered to patients ( Inui et al. , 2013, Thyer et al. 2013A , Uto 2012 , Yamamoto et al. 2008a , 2008b , 2008c ).


So apparently my concerns about the safety of blood products was unfounded because at least some of the "GcMAF" being used to treat patients is being made in a lab. Shame on me for presuming too much.... and my apologies for not getting it right the first time. My only excuse is ignorance and that I'm learning about this as I go along too. I can't promise perfection (so sorry!) but I can promise as I learn better I will do better.

The concerns about safety and efficacy remain. If we're going to be injecting this stuff into people's bodies -- people who are already sick -- then we need to be damn sure it is both safe and effective. That requires research and peer-reviewed clinical studies. So now I wonder... are these GcMAF providers being shut down by authorities because more research is needed? Or because someone doesn't want the necessary research done? And how many of these artificial GcMAF providers are among those who don't want the necessary research done because there is no profit in it for them? After all, one can patent an artificial GcMAF and charge obscene amounts of money under our current medical patent system... they can't do that with the real thing. Nor can they make boatloads of cash off the natural probiotics and cannabinoids that would allow our bodies to heal itself as nature intended. Hmmmm...

Apparently, genetics play a role as well:


Some authors described (Fabris et al 2012; Pacini et al 2012) that the effect of Gc -MAF depends on the genetic variants of the vitamin D receptor, the so-called “VDR genotypes “. In particular, the VDR variants “Fok 1″ and “BSM1″ were explored. The best responding patients (“responders”) seem to have the genotype FF / bb, followed by Ff / Bb . The genotype Ff / BB seems to be “low” responders.


The article also lists several studies/published papers on GcMAF.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Right, I'm really having a hard time finding any positive first hand accounts from anyone using this stuff. It seems like the "theory" is more sound than the actual practice of using it. Just because something make sense on paper doesn't mean it always translates to real-world results.

Heck, even positive invitro studies don't prove that a certain drug or treatment will work in humans.

If this stuff was the miracle it's claimed -- I'm wondering why researchers aren't clamoring over one another to be the first to somehow prove it. All kinds of grant funding and research positions would open up to someone who discovered such a radically effective treatment.

Big Pharma?

Look, just because this stuff is produced in the bodies and can't be patented doesn't mean the pharma companies can't blend a proprietary mixture and delivery method and patent that. Hell, THC is a pharmaceutical equivalent called Marinol -- they've got a patent on THC pills people.

And even drugs that have gone out of patent still make the pharmaceutical companies money. Take aspirin for example, it's been out of patent for...forever, and companies are still making money off of it.

I also can't believe that the richest people in America still die from cancer if this truly is a miracle cure. Everyone I've ever known (and it's been quite a few) that has been diagnosed or died from cancer goes on an alternative-treatment research binge. You don't think Steve Jobs has assistants and friends who might bring this stuff to his attention?

If big pharma knows this stuff is legit and works, then there shouldn't ever be a CEO or board member of a drug company that dies of cancer or has a kid with ADD/ADHD or autism.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom


Right, I'm really having a hard time finding any positive first hand accounts from anyone using this stuff. It seems like the "theory" is more sound than the actual practice of using it. Just because something make sense on paper doesn't mean it always translates to real-world results.


I share your frustration. The more I study this, the more questions I have. Especially after the reading I've done this morning. I need to think on this... and probably do a little more research... but I was thinking along the same line as you, "Okay, so what works in theory isn't working in practice... why?" But now I'm thinking more along the lines of, "Okay, so what works in nature isn't working in synthetic form... why?"

That naturally produced GcMAF is an important type of white blood cell and a vital part of our immune systems is scientific fact. And apparently it is also established (accepted?) scientific fact that nagalase is produced by -- and serum levels are elevated in -- virus, cancer, and some (not all) autism patients. So it makes sense to try increasing these macrophages to be able to fight the infection/disease... and then we get some glowing reports and some neutral or downright dismal reports. Why? Is it the source? A faulty product? Something in the patient's genetics? I don't know.

But here's the thing... I'm really not a fan of GcMAF treatment because I think we can do better with natural products like probiotics and cannabis oils and other cannabinoids that give our bodies what they need to heal themselves. I am fascinated by the GcMAF and nagalase research mostly because it complements/expands the recent research into the immune system's endocannabinoid receptors and the natural substances that feed these receptors. Though there will always be a place for supplementation for people whose immune systems are so broken that even stimulation with natural substances won't help. So like you said, again, there will be plenty of ways for folks to make plenty of money with the new research. But I also believe that there are a few people (with too much influence/power -- "regulatory capture") that want to keep all that for themselves and will do what they can/must to make that happen. For some, it's profit. For some it's control. For others... who knows.

I think the bigger problem for the industry isn't the GcMAF, but the presence of nagalase in the vaccines... while vaccine manufacturers receive very generous immunity from liability (no pun intended), if it can be shown that they were aware of the potential risks of the nagalase present in vaccines and did not disclose those risks, I would think they could be held civilly, if not criminally, liable. Especially if they knew some recipients of the vaccine were at higher risk of adverse outcomes.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
i have a few questions for the thread :

1- the claim " nagalese is in vaccines " :

got evidence ???????????????????

i would like to see the data showing the nagalese content [ micrograms ] in each vaccine please

2 - the claim " autistic children have HIGH nagalese levels "

again got evidence ??????????????

i want nagalse [ mg / kilo body weight ] data for these autistic children

2b - if the above claim is true - has the counter hypothesis of :

" the physiology that leads to autisdm produces nagalese "

been investigated ?????????????

3 - the thread title and various sources cited link nagalese to both autism and cancer

3a - why dont adult cancer patients display autism symptoms too

3b - where is the peadiatric cancer corralation to autism diagnosis ?

4 at what level [ micrograms / kilo body weight ] does nagalese have a statisticsaly observable effect on physiology ?

thats enough for a starter - lets see what answers [ if any ] fall out the tree



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
i have a few questions for the thread :

1- the claim " nagalese is in vaccines " :

got evidence ???????????????????


Got evidence it isn't? Many sources around the web, at least one quoted in my OP, states that nagalase is a component of ALL viruses... including those used for vaccines. Perhaps you can show me where the vaccine manufacturers have removed the nagalase from the virus before making the vaccine? That would be peachy.


i would like to see the data showing the nagalese content [ micrograms ] in each vaccine please


Okay. Unfortunately, I don't have access to that data. I'm sure the vaccine manufacturers do though... I'm sure they'd provide it to you if you ask nicely.


2 - the claim " autistic children have HIGH nagalese levels "

again got evidence ??????????????

i want nagalse [ mg / kilo body weight ] data for these autistic children


Okay. I have not qualified the levels myself, and I have noted that not ALL autistic patients have increased nagalase at any level -- high, low or anywhere in between. Nor do I have those levels you want. Perhaps you should return to the source and find your answers.


2b - if the above claim is true - has the counter hypothesis of :

" the physiology that leads to autisdm produces nagalese "

been investigated ?????????????


Good question. I don't have the answer. Perhaps you can research that and share it here, thus adding to the quality of the thread, and the further understanding/discussion of ATS.


3 - the thread title and various sources cited link nagalese to both autism and cancer

3a - why dont adult cancer patients display autism symptoms too

3b - where is the peadiatric cancer corralation to autism diagnosis ?


More good questions that I don't have an answer to. Perhaps you can research that also and share what you find. That would awesome.


4 at what level [ micrograms / kilo body weight ] does nagalese have a statisticsaly observable effect on physiology ?


Another good question. Again, perhaps you can research and find the answers. Or perhaps not enough study has been done (allowed?) to answer those questions. Either way, I'll look forward to hearing what you find!


thats enough for a starter - lets see what answers [ if any ] fall out the tree


Yes, indeed! You've got a lot of research to do there! I can't wait to hear what falls out of the trees you rattle. Good luck!



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Another thing .. people are actually speaking out and raving about being cured from cannabis oils. No one is doing so with this stuff. If you dig around on some cancer support message boards and read people's experiences, they're pretty disheartening.

If this stuff was as much of a miracle as the people selling it claim -- there'd be a huge online community helping people access it and getting people in touch with the right doctors overseas. This exists for cannabis oil, and it's illegal and big pharma apparently hates it too.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I agree wholeheartedly about the overwhelmingly positive cannabis results -- both anecdotal and clinical!

Without the research -- and wide availability -- of cannabinoids and cannabis products, the GcMAF research might be worth pursuing. But we have better options. The research into GcMAF has complemented the cannabinoid research, so I'm appreciative of what it adds to our understanding of our endocannabinoid/immune system though.

So this raises a question I've been pondering: Is all this fuss about GcMAF a distraction? Maybe a strawman easily set up, only to one day be knocked down again? If it is a distraction, what are they distracting from? The cannabis research/treatment? The nagalase inherent in vaccines? More hidden research data? I know Dr. Bradstreet was active in medical cannabis research and legalization in Colorado. I haven't pursued it any further. I have no idea if the other holistic doctors were also or to what extent.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

err NO

nice try - but i asked those 7 questions for a very specific reason :

if the " alternative doctors " who claim to be researching this had done ANY actually reasarch - they should have already published the answers to every one of my questions

Q 1 is so painfull it hurts

heres a quote from your own OP source :


Doctors found dead and/or went missing felt that nagalase was being introduced to the body through vaccines


felt ?????????????????????

just WTF ??????????????

science just left the alternative medice building .

i am not a medical researcher - i am an engineer - its not my job to do this crap

so dont palm the task off on me - look to your " alternate medicine " heroes - and ask - what the hell are they actually doing



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Boadicea

err NO

nice try - but i asked those 7 questions for a very specific reason...


Of couse you did. You were playing games. You obviously have a fairly good grasp of medical research protocols and objectives and whatever, simply by virtue of the fact that you knew to ask those questions. Rather than share your understanding and knowledge, or even your questions and doubts, you chose to ask "gotcha" questions... and we both know that you never would have accepted any answers I provided anyway. Your questions served absolutely no practical or productive purpose, and when challenged you wimp out. Okay. If you want to be THAT person, that's your choice... but we both know you can do better.


if the " alternative doctors " who claim to be researching this had done ANY actually reasarch - they should have already published the answers to every one of my questions


Perhaps they did. You'll never know though because you won't do your due diligence.


Q 1 is so painfull it hurts


Yes, indeed, it's downright painful to think that our children -- all of us -- are being injected with viruses that contain a substance so potentially dangerous to our long-term health... and that some people want to deny us our right to say "no."

If you have reason to believe -- or, better yet, facts to prove -- that viruses do not contain nagalase, including the viruses used in vaccines, please share... Otherwise, it's basic common sense: If all viruses contain nagalase, and all vaccines contain viruses, then ALL VACCINES CONTAIN NAGALASE. Prove otherwise or you're just talking trash.


i am not a medical researcher - i am an engineer - its not my job to do this crap

so dont palm the task off on me...


And I am not your servant. If you don't want to know -- or if you're just too lazy to do the homework -- don't palm the task off on me.


- look to your " alternate medicine " heroes - and ask - what the hell are they actually doing...


Sure not "my" medical heroes, as you would know if you had taken the time to read the entire thread... and I don't need to ask what "they" are doing... they're dead. I'm wondering what the hell the still living are actually doing.
edit on 26-8-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   
8 dead doctors and 5 still missing






posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
So while doing more research on GcMAF treatment, I came across the website offering nagalase testing, with much (MUCH!) better explanation/description of exactly what GcMAF is than I have been able to offer:


The Gc-Protein has a sugar side chain consisting of three sugar molecules , namely N – acetyl galactosamine , galactose, and sialic acid a so-called “tri- saccharide” (= “triple sugar”). When sialic acid and galactose are removed from this tri- saccharide, N -acetyl- galactosamine remains as a single sugar moiety. For Gc-Protein modified in this manner a strong activating effect on macrophages has been described: this modified Gc-Protein is a “Macrophage-Activating Factor”, abbreviated as “MAF”. More specifically the partially de-glycosylated Gc protein -derived macrophage-activating molecule is called “Gc -MAF” ( Saharuddin et al. 2002 Kuchiike et al. , 2013 Kisker et al. 2003)



How is Nagalase thought to inactivate Gc-MAF?

The enzyme “Nagalase” completely eliminates the sugar side chain of the Gc protein: the thus-modified Gc protein can no longer be converted to Gc MAF, its immune-stimulatory effect is no longer available. In other words, the effect of Nagalase on Gc Protein prevents the formation Gc -MAF. Insofar, tumor-derived Nagalase may have immune-suppressive properties.


More interesting -- and worrisome -- is this:


Artificially produced Gc-MAF for treating diseases

When the macrophage activating activity of Gc-MAF became known, research was conducted towards synthetic production of Gc MAF and its use as an immune-stimulating agent. The therapy with artificial GcMAF is thought to benefit from the fact that artificial GcMAF cannot be inactivated by Nagalase. Accordingly, methods have been developed for in vitro production of Gc-MAF which is then administered to patients ( Inui et al. , 2013, Thyer et al. 2013A , Uto 2012 , Yamamoto et al. 2008a , 2008b , 2008c ).


So apparently my concerns about the safety of blood products was unfounded because at least some of the "GcMAF" being used to treat patients is being made in a lab. Shame on me for presuming too much.... and my apologies for not getting it right the first time. My only excuse is ignorance and that I'm learning about this as I go along too. I can't promise perfection (so sorry!) but I can promise as I learn better I will do better.

The concerns about safety and efficacy remain. If we're going to be injecting this stuff into people's bodies -- people who are already sick -- then we need to be damn sure it is both safe and effective. That requires research and peer-reviewed clinical studies. So now I wonder... are these GcMAF providers being shut down by authorities because more research is needed? Or because someone doesn't want the necessary research done? And how many of these artificial GcMAF providers are among those who don't want the necessary research done because there is no profit in it for them? After all, one can patent an artificial GcMAF and charge obscene amounts of money under our current medical patent system... they can't do that with the real thing. Nor can they make boatloads of cash off the natural probiotics and cannabinoids that would allow our bodies to heal itself as nature intended. Hmmmm...

Apparently, genetics play a role as well:


Some authors described (Fabris et al 2012; Pacini et al 2012) that the effect of Gc -MAF depends on the genetic variants of the vitamin D receptor, the so-called “VDR genotypes “. In particular, the VDR variants “Fok 1″ and “BSM1″ were explored. The best responding patients (“responders”) seem to have the genotype FF / bb, followed by Ff / Bb . The genotype Ff / BB seems to be “low” responders.


The article also lists several studies/published papers on GcMAF.


Stay away from anything synthetic. The very first thing they inject infants with is a Synthetic Vitamin K shot, and it's been proven synthetics cause way more problems, and generally do the opposite of what the REAL stuff does.

I didn't even have a choice whether or not my baby boy got the Vit. K shot after birth, and they inject it because of some weird, extremely low, statistic that without the K injection there's like a 1% chance infants brains will bleed.....and of course, that one percent is good enough in western medicine, nor is it even proven.

This crazy stuff goes deep, and I've never been more pissed off at ignorant people. Pro-vaccine people will call anti-vaccine people stupid because generally anti-vaccine people actually care about what's inject in their children, and take the time to actually think and read.
edit on 26-8-2015 by Flesh699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Thank you for the videos -- much appreciated! I'll check them out when I'm on a computer a can watch vids from.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Flesh699


Stay away from anything synthetic.


Yes!!! Just look at all the studies that claim vitamin supplements don't help or actually cause harm. Every time they use synthetic vitamins -- never whole food vitamins. And then wonder why our bodies don't react the same??? Once I learned that the GcMAF being used for treatment is synthetic, it made sense why it wasn't working like the natural stuff. Duh!


The very first thing they inject infants with is a Synthetic Vitamin K shot.


When my babies were born, they just put a couple drops of silver in the eyes to prevent infections -- and they had to get my consent first! How times have changed and NOT for the better.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom


I'm not saying this stuff isn't something to look into -- but let's be careful about citing sources that have been retracted due to poor scientific methods.




I agree.. I read the retracting statement regarding his work and I did think it was silly that he simply measured nagalase levels... but... if nagalase causes bodily aberration, and the GcMAP reduces nagalase... then we are led to believe that GcMAP is effective because Yamamoto DID prove that GcMAP decreases nagalase levels. ***If vaccines do in fact increase nagalase levels [a citation for that statement would be a nail in the coffin, but I couldn't find one]***, obviously those profiting off vaccines would want to hinder the process of this knowledge coming into the light. For now its speculative... but the dead doctors lead me to suspicion.



If this stuff was the miracle it's claimed -- I'm wondering why researchers aren't clamoring over one another to be the first to somehow prove it.


As with all natural (and thus un-patentable) products there is no monetary incentive to research such things because there will not be an immensely profitable payoff as with pharmaceuticals for example. Without monetary incentive, especially since this information could hurt people's wallets, I don't see this field foregoing at a fast rate. Again, especially when the doctors who research this topic are all coincidentally(?) dying.
edit on 26-8-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join