Date:   2/16/2015 4:48:24 AM ( 10 y ago)
Hits:   1,357
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=2237026

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

“Most lay people aren’t aware that there really is an embedded political structure to organized science, one that is intrinsically linked to the political structure of academia in general. The public at large might not be aware, but those in the field live its realities every day. Something is not “truth” just because it was published, or passed peer review…or is even accepted by the mainstream. Let’s not pretend that science is an open, equal opportunity path for truth. You know how “publish or die” works, and the hierarchical gauntlet that nearly every worker faces in getting anything published. It’s all about funding opportunities and peer review, and there is a political hierarchy to all of that in all fields and disciplines. That is the first (and most daunting) real “mountain to climb”, and it only gets steeper for anyone daring to publish anything that runs counter to the putative mainstream — let alone obtain funding for that work. It is disingenuous to suggest that the process of getting something published that runs with the mainstream is equal to the process of getting anything published which runs counter to the mainstream. In all fields, all disciplines. That is the reality, and the systemic irony that few want to acknowledge, the implication that science is somehow above the fray and beyond all that. The ugly and most inconvenient truth of all is that scientists are just people, with real needs, who have to eat, like anyone else. And it is a well-established fact that your chances of eating are lessened by anything that bucks the mainstream. What I find appalling is not that lay people could argue or be convinced otherwise, but that scientists could be in denial about that, and argue otherwise between each other. That, to me, is the epitome of a denialist.” Steven Douglas

Part 1
The Myth of Virology

There are many medical premises that we have all been subjected to throughout our lives in the west; we adhere to principals taught to us from birth by way of the various institutions (education, media and general consensus) and reinforced by a system designed to protect and promote its own industry and profits while simultaneously creating a self perpetuating condition of the self that requires qualified others to treat these abstractions.

In the past man has survived and thrived in various environmental conditions, being a self sustaining system relying on the innate knowledge of self and surroundings to sustain health.
The past 100 or so years has rapidly seen the argument of technological advancement juxtaposed to supplant our innate knowledge of self determination.

One of two conceptualisations is the myth of the Pathogenic Virus. Originally conceived terminology to describe the introduction of poison to a system; the Latin translation of the term being slime, venom or poison or a harsh bitter taste and/or something that has a corrupting or poisonous effect, especially on the mind. The meaning however has been evolved over time to mean something quite different.

Many aspects of Beauchamp’s research were plagiarised and debased by Pasteur and for the sake of brevity this is where the concept of the pathogenic virus was popularised.

So, what is a virus and how is it supposed to function?
The virus itself is an inert, non living particle of dna encapsulated in a protein coat. The premise is that the virus particle enters into a cell and uses the cells own life processes to replicate and spread throughout the body and has the ability to spread through water or air from one organism to another.

During the past 2 decades the authenticity of the pathogenic virus particle has been put to test.
The HIV virus that has been asserted leads to and is the causative agent of AIDS was apparently discovered by Gallo in 1984.
Several established virologists have asked for primary evidence for the existence of the virus particle but to date none has ever been shown despite substantial monetary rewards offered.

The criteria that is used to fulfil the requirements that establish the causal nature of a disease are known as Koch’s postulates; Robert Koch and a bacteriologist, Friedrich Loeffler, researched viral diseases and came up with a hypothesis around 1890. They suggested that if viruses caused disease, we should be able to isolate the virus organism, and in turn use that organism to start the same disease in another animal that was otherwise healthy. Koch’s postulates were written according to these critera.

“

1.The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy animals.
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
4. The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

These postulates seem to make sense. But the problem is that we are forced to take on faith, without scientific proof, that viruses today have been isolated and discovered following these terms to denote scientific proof.

Since Koch’s time, technology has improved. These improvements should allow science to be able to prove conclusively, according to Koch’s postulates, that viruses exist… and a virus should have been isolated under the microscope. The problem lies in the fact that no one has been successful in isolating any viruses, so we still need scientific proof that they exist. If this astonishing scientific discovery was true, one would expect the medical industry to make the announcement that viruses causing disease do not actually exist. But instead of bringing forth the truth, something far more sinister has occurred: they pretended to use Koch’s postulates to have isolated the virus. Even though they could not isolate a virus clearly, they have claimed that a virus existed.

To put it bluntly, there is no such thing as a virus. If scientists suggest that they have isolated a virus, what it means is that they really have isolated is a cellular mass material in which a virus is thought to exist. Filtering the material from sick animals which are believed to have a disease, and then placing the material with other cells in a Petri dish, and then watching the cells die has made the researchers believe that they have discovered a deadly virus. Next, some of these partially filtered and blended animal parts are searched for RNA strands. If an RNA strand is found, then they make the announcement that they have “mapped” the virus.”
http://www.healingourchildren.org/virus-vaccines-and-kochs-postulates-have-viruses-been-proven-to-exist-which-are-said-to-cause-diseases/

NO Pathogenic Virus has ever been shown to exist. There exists no proof that a complete pathogenic virus has ever been successfully isolated (whether by molecular sieve or by centrifuge) and biochemically characterised, photographed then used to re-infect disease free tissues and the process repeated.
All the methods employed are by what is known as indirect methodology until the electron microscope is used which is the only direct part of the process but relies completely on the indirect processes mentioned to establish purity of the isolated material which is based on the ASSUMPTION of previously isolated precedent which is indeed a leap of faith.

I have previously happened upon arguments raging on private forums where the viral specialists have been defending this precise position with nothing but assumption and dogma offering nothing but PCR, western blot and  ELISA testing and modern variations promising quicker faster and more accurate results, non-specific antibody testing is another guise by which remedy is foisted upon the hapless patient.
All these methods are indirect -  previous isolation, identification, characterisation and repeatability is assumed to have been established at some stage prior to adoption.
When Primary evidence is required, none is to be found. When evidence is offered it is usually in the form of an electron micrograph often strikingly coloured with a label stating the virus name. The accompanying primary research does not extend to the method employed to physically (and directly) isolate, characterise, and photograph with repeatability. It is all faith based.
http://www.virology.ws/2009/11/24/the-d225g-change-in-2009-h1n1-influenza-virus-is-not-a-concern/
Observe the comments section and the refusal of Niman to qualify an answer.

Here's a copy of an open letter that may be of further interest to those who seek the truth regarding the existence of alleged 'pathogenic viruses'. It was sent to Professor John Oxford who is supposed to be a 'world renowned expert influenza virologist'. The letter was posted in the December 2009 Idaho Observer by James McCumiskey author of 'The Ultimate Conspiracy: The Biomedical Paradigm. I have been informed that NO RESPONSE has been forthcoming to this letter .
 

There is no concrete scientific proof that has been forthcoming by ANYBODY to date that any of the alleged ‘pathogenic viruses’ like Swine Flu (H1N1) physically exist to CAUSE anything, because NO complete virus particle has ever been effectively isolated, photographed and biochemically characterized to date. This suggests that such symptom complexes labelled as 'Swine Flu' may have OTHER NON-VIRAL CAUSES.

Indeed, the idea of a ‘virus’ as currently understood may have little to do with just a bit of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) wrapped in a protein coat. Both RNA and DNA are inert chemicals pure and simple and are not LIVING ORGANISMS they are DEAD matter, have no metabolism, and cannot 'hijack' cells to reproduce anything if they are dead in the water. There simply are no 'live viruses' (as is often claimed) in certain vaccines and that applies to MMR. Most viruses are harmless that are found in nature and there are literally millions of harmless viruses in a litre of seawater.

However, the meaning of ‘virus’ is somewhat deceptive and it may help to explain why nobody has been able to effectively isolate one which is ‘pathogenic’ AND be able to prove scientifically that virus is THE cause of disease.

Why? Because virologists and microbiologists are educated to look in the wrong direction for the wrong cause or causes of a disease like the Flu, namely, bits of nucleic acid or gene substance instead of looking for other noxious endogenous or exogenous substances that encumber the human body that is already trying to rid itself of them. This occurs by way of some vicarious process of elimination e.g. inflammation or feverish Flu-like symptoms when the situation becomes more critical under the prevailing conditions. Blaming an alleged 'pathogenic virus' a billionth the size of a cell consisting mainly of dead DNA or RNA is the easy and lazy way out of explaining the real complex causes of the disease symptoms in question.

In 1926, JH Tilden MD of Denver, Colorado, wrote a book which was the culmination of a lifetime of clinical experience entitled ‘Toxemia Explained’. Dr. Tilden was radical. He didn’t believe drugs cured disease. He also believed that ‘germ theory’ was, for the most part, delusional. And he had results, from cleanliness practices to dietary causes and cures of most major illnesses, to back up his beliefs.
He had one simple thesis:

“… every so-called disease is a crisis of toxemia, which means that toxin has accumulated in the blood above the toleration point. … the crisis, the so-called disease – call it cold, flu, pneumonia, headache, or typhoid fever – is a vicarious elimination. Nature is endeavoring to rid the body of toxin.”
(Toxemia Explained p. 49)

Insofar as the mucous surfaces of the body are concerned Tilden concluded: "The only disease is Toxemia, and what we call diseases are the symptoms produced by a forced vicarious elimination of toxin through the mucous membrane" (ibid., p. 64).

A disease is named for where the toxins accumulate and/or the damage resulting from the toxins occurs to such an extent that the body part or parts in question start to fail.

The liver and the kidneys for example, are important eliminative organs. For the liver, the natural channel of elimination is through the bowel; for the kidneys, through the bladder and urethra. However, if the liver becomes congested and cannot perform its eliminative function, waste matter (toxins) is dumped into the blood stream. Similarly, when the kidneys are inflamed, toxins accumulate in the blood. If the toxins are not discharged from the bloodstream the person dies, so nature uses vicarious channels of elimination or substitutes. You can now understand why colds and Flu may well be vicarious channels of elimination. The name of a disease is thus based upon a description, macro and microscopic, of the changes in the organs being used as emergency channels of elimination. After the cells have been damaged by toxic wastes, it is easy for bacteria, as scavengers, to attack and devour the weakened, injured and dead cells.

The word ‘virus’ ironically gives us a clue. It comes from the Latin root word which refers to poison, poisonous fluid, venom, or other noxious substances (electromagnetic energy may also be included - it can have the same deleterious effect on your cells, immune system and defences).

Energy is a substance not just an empty abstract capacity to do work. If your energy becomes depleted for whatever reason, your body has less available energy to perform its vital defence and regeneration functions and can become dis-eased as a result. Remember, all biochemistry at base level deals with energy charges and charge distributions. The precise form in which a particular dis-ease may manifest itself will always depend on the prevailing conditions, e.g. the body's energy supply and other resources available to the body to deal with the problem, the toxins involved, and the damage resulting from their action on the body.

In the early 1900's, during the worst pneumonia epidemic America had ever seen, which was at that time the number one killer, Dr Tilden had the highest success in healing pneumonia of any other medical doctor. During that epidemic most doctors lost hundreds of patients. Dr. Tilden, who treated more pneumonia cases than any other doctor in the country, never lost a patient. His treatment methods differed from that of other doctors because he used no drugs and he cleansed the colon of each patient, used water therapy, and administered natural live foods. His success was considered miraculous because other doctors, who were relying on drugs, continually met with failure.
 

So, if the pathogenic virus is not responsible for the range illnesses that we succumb to then what is responsible?

Beauchamp, a contemporary of Pasteur’s, was inclined to favour a different view on healthfulness.
He polemically opposed Pasteur’s analysis of what constituted disease and maintained it was the terrain, or physical landscape that determined health.
Two factors determine our ability to maintain health; nutrition and toxicity.
Both go hand in hand with industrialised farming methods that give us an abundance of an ever-changing plethora of chemicals that are used as fertilisers and pesticides while simultaneously reducing the amount of nutrients available, most notably mineral content, the building blocks of life and the limiting factor of nutrition.

Virus Mania (linked above) lends a detailed historical perspective on the role that the prolific use of chemicals has played, industrially and medicinally and how symptomatically the misappropriation of the pathogenic virus has been used to shape the medical landscape in popular culture, not least with the introduction of the vaccine.

The following excerpt will aid to lend a perspective of the type of fraud that continually plagues all areas of modern science;  bear in mind that scrutiny today is a very different animal to that of a century ago as is the speed of communication!

“A survey of nearly 2,800 scientists and doctors in the UK has found that 13 percent of them admitted to witnessing the falsification and fabrication of data created by their colleagues. Additionally, 6 percent of the nearly 2,800 individuals surveyed were aware of research misconduct at their own workplace which had never been properly investigated to looked into. Needless to say, there could very well be more scientists or doctors not speaking up, further increasing the scandal rate.

Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor for the British Medical Journal, for which the poll was conducted, says:

“While our survey can’t provide a true estimate of how much research misconduct there is in the UK, it does show that there is a substantial number of cases and that UK institutions are failing to investigate adequately, if at all…The BMJ has been told of junior academics being advised to keep concerns to themselves to protect their careers, being bullied into not publishing their findings, or having their contracts terminated when they spoke out…This survey chimes with our experience where we see many cases of institutions not co-operating with journals and failing to investigate research misconduct properly.“

Interestingly enough, there is so much fraud occurring in the medical field that websites are popping up solely to target these numerous cases. Another medical fraud coming to light is the case involving Duke University and Anil Potti, a researcher formally known by mainstream medical experts for transforming cancer research for the better. However, the scientific papers published by Potti turned out to be completely falsified and skewered – a case showing and ultimately convincing many individuals that medical fraud can happen anytime and anywhere, even at high-status universities.

Earlier this month, health experts writing in the BMJ online warned that excluding data from clinical trials could endanger patients.
In an editorial, Dr Richard Lehman from Oxford University and the journal’s clinical epidemiology editor Dr Elizabeth Loder called for an end to the 'culture of haphazard publication and incomplete data disclosure'.

They called for more robust regulation and full access to the raw trial data, not just what ends up being published. They said that those who deliberately hide results 'have breached their ethical duty to trial participants'.”


References: Natural Society and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1owCQMbbq


 

Part 2

The Myth of Genetic engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms (GE & GMO’s)

At first glance the two separate subjects of Viruses and Genetic Engineering might seem separate but there are similarities that are impossible to ignore.

WHAT IS A GENE?
“The nucleus is the control center of the cell. It controls both the chemical reactions that occur
in the cell and reproduction of the cell. Briefly, the nucleus contains large quantities of
deoxyribonucleic acid, which we have called genes for many years. The genes determine the
characteristics of the protein enzymes of the cytoplasm, and in this way control cytoplasmic
activities. To control reproduction, the genes first reproduce themselves, and after this is
accomplished the cell splits by a special process called mitosis to form two daughter cells, each
of which receives one of the two sets of genes” (from pages 15, 16 of Basic Human Physiology:
Normal Function and Mechanisms of Disease by Arthur C. Guyton, M.D., W. B. Saunders Company, 1977).

Let’s boil down the bare bones answer from what was just said—genes are nucleic acid. Period. Got
that? If you look under “genes” in the index, it says “see DNA”. DO NOT MISS THIS POINT— GENES ARE
NUCLEIC ACID. AND VIRUSES ARE NUCLEIC ACID.

WHAT IS NUCLEIC ACID?
Nucleic acids are molecules of acids arranged around the nucleus of the cell, that’s why they are
called nucleic acids. One type of acid is called deoxy-ribo-nucleic acid, abbreviated DNA. The
other is called ribo-nucleic acid, or RNA. These acids (when dried they become crystals) consist of
small parts called nucleotides. The nucleotides are adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), uracil
(U), and thymine (T). The A, C, G, and T nucleotides are what make up the “steps” or “cross-bars”
of the DNA double-helix “ladder” of genes. In DNA, the strands (“steps”) connect in binary pairs, A
to T and G to C.

The T is replaced by U in RNA. In RNA molecules, G - C and A - U are the paired “steps” on the gene
ladder.

The genes of animals and humans are DNA molecules, although the cell also uses RNA to promote
chemical reactions and transport of materials. DNA is found in the nucleus of the cell, RNA is
found in the cytoplasm surrounding the nucleus.

If you are awake and thinking and following me so far, you will have noticed that viruses are
pieces of RNA
and DNA. And the genetic code, the genes, of living things are pieces of RNA and DNA. So, how do
you tell the difference between a virus and a gene?
Ah, Ha! You can’t. THEY ARE THE SAME THING, called two different names by the witch doctors.
Think maybe there is something fishy going on here?

“Viruses consist of a single type of nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) within a protein coat called a capsid. The nucleic acid and the capsid are referred to as the nucleocapsid. The nucleic acids contain the information for making the proteins found in the viral coat as well as many of the enzymes required to invade the host and to replicate the virus’s nucleic acid. Some viruses are covered by a membrane, often called the envelope. The term virion is used to describe the complete viral particle, including the nucleocapsid and any envelope it may have. None of the viruses is able to replicate in the absence of host cells. Thus, all the viruses are obligate parasites of cellular organisms” (p. 254, Essentials of Microbiology by Raúl J. Cano and Jaime S. Colomé).
Don’t let the big words throw you, a virus is a molecule of DNA or RNA. Period. Sometimes its coat changes, but that is beside our point. A gene is a molecule of DNA or RNA. Period. There is no (apparent) difference between a gene and a virus, except if it is a “bad” gene we call it a virus.
THE VIRUS CON—A LETHAL GAME!
by Calvin Burgin 4/17/97                  

Here we can see that making a comparison between the so called virus particle and the gene is useful in that differentiating or not as this case seems to be, between the two, clearly presents difficulties.
The difficulty of purification, isolation, characterisation  and subsequent identification is precisely the same!

In essence, the difficulty inherent in isolating and characterising a virus is precisely the same for DNA or rNA.
Irrespective of what method is used to sterilise or purify the environment of bacteria, microbes or fungi, they are always present, in the air, in water and in the test subjects themselves. Not only is it impossible to separate these contaminants from the test subjects (purportedly used for the purpose of GE), the test subjects themselves create their own contaminants as a by product of respiration itself. Cellular respiration itself means cells are in a constant state of flux with parts being replaced (organelles) including that of the DNA itself as it naturally degrades and needs repair, and in response to environmental conditions such as radiation (background or other), nutritional balance or imbalance as the case may be and exposure to chemicals, all of which will determine the the state of the DNA, its rate and degree of mutation. The end result is a cell full of detritus of various origins, some of which is encapsulated by cellular process, all in an environment that cannot be guaranteed to be sterile and that is a fact of life.

Whatever the method for purification and isolation of DNA; whether it is a centrifuged sucrose suspension or a molecular sieve or any other, it is impossible to separate out an intact hosts subject target DNA in its entirety (or in part to be reassembled, since the origin has yet to be detected and deciphered!) logistically since the presence of all the cellular and nucleic detritus makes this impossible, and these particles are too small to be manipulated by direct observation. It follows that replication using pcr test, RPA test or any other will only replicate sections of what is present, detritus and all, since it is impossible to determine without direct observation. The inventor of the pcr test stated as much in its widely taken up misuse. (Isolation, purification, and characterisation are therefore not possible as with viruses)
The electron microscope can only be used to view, photograph and catalogue what is placed in its path and cannot observe any form of interaction. Since the particles of DNA that are isolated for viewing are indeterminate in nature in an electron micrograph, the DNA might as well be that of a teenage mutant ninja turtle.

Anyway - this is my crude uneducated attempt to explore/determine whether or not there is merit in the so called science of genetic engineering or mutilation as I prefer presently to label it.
please excuse my poor understanding of terms and nomencalture, but im sure some will get the gist of what I am trying to describe.

If I am correct (and I reserve the right not to be!) then the implications are enormous.
It means the human genome project is a fraud as is genetic engineering as perceived and promulgated by the media; mainstream and alternative alike, and are either ignorant or in cahoots with big industry and therefore part of the social engineering tapestry we know and love so well.
It also means that Genetically Modified organisms or transgenic crops  as they are also known are also fakery!
As we know GMO’s require the generous use of glyphosate (roundup ready in the case of Monsanto) as part of the production method and make the promise of higher yields etc – which have yet to materialise!

Interestingly:
The molecule “glyphosate” was patented by Monsanto in the early 1970s as the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup®. Roundup was introduced to the consumer market in 1974 as a broad-spectrum herbicide and quickly became one of the best-selling herbicides since 1980.

Its patent expired in 2000

GMO's introduced in 1994 - widespread use and uptake taking several years.
By 1999 almost 50 percent of the corn, cotton, and soybeans planted in the United States were GM. By the end of 2010, GM crops covered more than 9.8 million square kilometres (3.8 million square miles) of land in 29 countries worldwide—one-tenth of the world’s farmland.

All requiring proprietary treatment (glyphosate) from the roundup family of pesticides.
Health effects of glyphosate contamination include:
Teratogenicity and reproductive effects
Endocrine disruption
Carcinogenicity
Genotoxicity
Neurotoxicity
Internal organ toxicity
Acute toxicity

Glyphosate resistant weeds
Effects on crop and plant health
Effects on soil ecology
Effects on ecosystems
Diseases of livestock
Widespread contamination of water supplies

Copied and pasted from various websites - sterility (reproductive effects) underlined.

The following link if read carefully, a distinction between the effects of Glyphosate and so called GMO's can be established!
conveniently lumping the two together clouds the issue.
http://www.examiner.com/article/mountin ... th-defects

Other concerns - supposedly inert ingredients in roundup include polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, is more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”


If GMO’s are then fakery! It should be questioned to what end that this fakery takes place.

We presently see a war of types taking place, GMO’s verses organic. Growers taken to court and aggressively sued by Monsanto and their ilk. The PCR test is used generally as evidence which proves nothing other than nucleic acid is present and it then multiplies the sequences magically creating proof!
The PCR test an indirect testing procedure is the equivalent to obtaining a sack full of nuts and bolts from a scrap yard and making the ludicrous claim that the contents of the sack is proof that the scrap yard contains 20 ford transits without ever having visited or any knowledge of the scrap yard.
In reality the (PCR) proof means nothing but it is accepted in a court of law.

Farmers have and will lose out to agropharma by this method of deception.

So called horizontal gene transfer can also be established across wide swathes of the environment without ever requiring tangible proof other than the PCR test or some contemporary equivalent.

It can easily be claimed that organic crops are contaminated, agropharma claiming ownership!
Any Crops for that matter can be claimed to be owned by this method.
Who will oppose?
Who will challenge?

The whole food supply can be claimed and taken over by agropharma by this method.
All without any genetic engineering taking place in the first place!
Small farmers will be driven from their land.

 

If the story has been followed so far – without casting judgement, keeping an open mind and taking time to verify the facts that have been laid out as I have seen them.
Then:
We start to gain an understanding of the absolute magnitude of capability that is social engineering!
We start to understand the grand facade of this artifice we call civilisation and more pertinently how we need to change it for the benefit of all people which can only be contemplated by determining the truth (or the correct version of the truthJ).

If we put the abstraction of the virus and genetic engineering  into a wider context – we can see that it is in fact a chemical delivery system,  a social engineering system, a tool to bypass or create health scares, a disguise for said chemical use.
 

To place this in perspective:

The Egyptians, Greeks, Babylonians societies were ultimately destroyed by usury.
The fall of the roman empire can be attributed to the same. (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

Outright control of most of the world’s economy is now in private hands.
Oil, gas and coal (Energy) is  for the most part in private hands.
Water supply is in private hands.
The food supply is now heading in the same direction of complete private ownership.
Recent machinations from the EU point to a similar direction.

Global political policy is directed by an unelected group called the United Nations.
They control or direct all policies with their various tentacles such as the WHO, IPCC, IMF, etc
CAGW has been used as the environmental fulcrum to direct the many changes politically.
 

Socially we have been fed one false paradigm after the other and divorced from our true nature, which is part of the intent.

The worst in my humble opinion is that government is perceived legitimate in the first instance.

An analogy I came across a while back compared government to rape.
Taking the analogy further; we know rape to be a vile act.
But if we give the victim a choice of 2 or maybe 3 rapists, and the victim then gets to make a choice of the lesser of them.
Does the act of rape then become legitimised?
Because this precisely describes Government
Supporting GE material – from nature magazine illustrates the inability of science to come to agreement re: GE
Why? Because they are scrabbling around with a fiction!

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.01 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=2237026