Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / March 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Should you trust your oncologist?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Carole - 19 Mar 2008 12:31 GMT
Should you trust your oncologist?
http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/

Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent)
would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the
disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism.  --Dr.
Tullio Simoncini (Oncologist)

    Alan Greenspan dismissed as a "collectivist" myth the idea that
businessmen, left to their own devices, "would attempt to sell unsafe food
and drugs, fraudulent securities, and shoddy buildings." On the contrary, he
declared, "it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a
reputation for honest dealings and a quality product." Greenspan was proven
wrong. Cancer is a huge business and we do find pharmaceutical companies,
medical and health officials, doctors and hospitals attempting to sell us
drugs and hospital procedures that are dangerous and ineffective.

    There is no shortage of hard evidence that shows how big pharmaceutical
companies hide the dangers of drugs, never publishing results we have the
right to know. The matter of unpublished research is a serious one. When
doctors make mistakes people die and the withholding of information leads us
to make mistakes.

    When you read that FDA regulators said Glaxo hasn't adequately alerted
physicians to Tykerb's risks, including reduced pumping action of the
heart's lower left chamber you are reading about a common tendency in
orthodox allopathic medicine. Your doctor will almost always understate the
risks and dangers of the drugs, tests, radiation and surgery. And just as
these same regulators also cited Glaxo for exaggerating the effectiveness of
their drug Tykerb, your doctor will also exaggerate the effectiveness of
what he is going to suggest to you.

    Much of what we find in orthodox oncology is fraudulent medical science
leading to shoddy medical practice. Instead of honest open dealings many
oncologists are impossible to communicate with and this arrogance makes it
very difficult to think straight and decide on reasonable treatment.

     Actually we are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has
ever known and believe just about anything fed to us through the media,
especially in the area of medicine. There are people who know this and pray
upon our vulnerabilities. Our thoughts and attitudes have been shaped
through many years of continuous propaganda, molded by people who do not
care for anything but money and power. Our ideas about health and medicine
have been implanted in the public consciousness by thousands of media clips
each year.

    Beware and proceed with care. Who you trust is going to be paramount to
the outcome of your cancer. A mistake with trust at this exact moment in
your life could cost you your life. Medical and pharmaceutical terrorism
fits in a very specific category of terrorism described as "scientific
terrorism." We all understand that if a terrorist pulls a gun on innocent
people and shoots them, or blows himself up in a crowded area and takes
innocent lives, then he has clearly committed a terrorist act. Scientific
terrorists do not use guns or bombs but instead use diplomas, impressive
titles, official positions and medical organizations to drive stakes into
our hearts.

    For most people, these kinds of terrorists are invisible. "They almost
always wear suits and ties, sport enough degrees after their names to choke
an elephant, and speak in serious and seemingly knowledgeable tones about
science and health. And they can kill you just as dead as any trigger-happy
terrorist hefting an AK-47," writes attorney Scott C. Tips, who goes on to
say that these kinds of terrorists tell us to:

* To take drugs when they are either unnecessary or contraindicated;
* To undergo surgery when either unnecessary or contraindicated;
* To undergo radiation treatment when either unnecessary or contraindicated;
* To undergo hospitalization when either unnecessary or contraindicated;
* That pesticide and herbicide residues in your foods will not hurt you or
your children;
* That vitamin-and-mineral supplements are a waste of money and result in
nothing more than expensive urine;
* That organic and whole foods are unnecessary and a waste of money;
* That expensive and costly regulations are necessary to protect your
health; and
* That you are incapable of making "complicated" health and safety decisions
affecting you and your family's health, which decisions are better left in
the hands of the educated elite

    Modern oncologists are trained agents of the pharmaceutical giants.
When it comes to the trust issue one should never forget who built and ran
the Auschwitz concentration camp. So great did I.G. Farben (then the
greatest pharmaceutical firm in the world) regard the postwar potential of
the Auschwitz project that it decided to make an unusual gamble on its
future. Rather than let the German government finance the building of the
installations, the I.G. directors voted to put up the funds to make I.G.
Auschwitz a privately owned I.G. enterprise and to assume the entire risk
and thus of course the entire responsibility.

    At the end of WWII the allies split up IG Farben into companies that
are now the top pharmaceutical concerns on earth among them Bayer, Hoescht,
BASF, the Agfa-Gevaert Group and Cassella AG. Many of Wall Streets favorite
pharmaceutical/chemical companies behind the proliferation of
genetically-altered foods, transgenic animals, human cloning, dangerous
psychiatric drugs, deadly vaccines and pesticides -such as Aventis- are
subsidiaries of these same companies.

     It is impossible to understand the politics of medicine and the
history of the war on cancer without acknowledging the pharmaceutical
companies historic tendencies to treat people like cattle. Most people today
resent any mention of the Nazi horrors and who financed and administrated
them for they have made a new religion out of worshipping these same
companies and their products.

Our worship of orthodox medicine, of vaccines and cancer
treatments is in reality the worship of the Fourth Reich.
    Of the 24 directors of IG Farben indicted in the so-called IG Farben
Trial (1947-1948) before a U.S. military tribunal at the subsequent
Nuremberg Trials, 13 were sentenced to prison terms between one and eight
years. Most were free and back in the board rooms by 1952 becoming leaders
of the post-war companies that split off from IG Farben.. These medical
monsters who thought nothing of the brutal torturing and killing of millions
of men, women and children are the same people we have been trusting with
our and our loved ones lives.

    Anyone who believes that these directors had a change of heart and
reformed their ways will receive their treatments from companies and doctors
who are card carrying members of the orthodox medical establishment. They
are in an incestuous relationship with the very profitable pharmaceutical
industry.

    Orthodox allopathic medicine and the entire field of oncology are
married to the worst elements of modern history. One has to understand what
one is trusting when walking into an oncologist's office of their own free
will. The unfortunates in Europe had to be herded into the death camps at
gun point but now people walk into hospitals of their own free will and
receive tests and treatments that are brutally toxic.

    In reality orthodox oncology invites people into a medical
concentration camp where men, women and children are forced to bear cruel
lethal treatments. Cancer patients are routinely poisoned on a massive scale
with chemotherapy; they are exposed to massive amounts of radiation, to
death rays, both of which are an invitation to premature death. Radiation is
the death principle and scientists recognize that even in very small amounts
all forms of artificially created radiation increase the likelihood of
cancer. Patients are also put to the knife and the cancer is cut out even
though surgery increases the chances of the cancer spreading to other parts
of the body. All in all oncologists use treatments that cause cancer to
treat cancer and this is the summation of their medical intelligence.

Medical truth is systematically ridiculed by the medical establishment
so they can continue to get away with murder.
    Orthodox oncologists are in the business of death, medical henchmen
trained to kill people in a very particular way. We have advanced greatly in
a negative sense since the days of Hitler's concentration camps. Today
people trust and embrace their killers willingly and that's just how the
story goes. It is the story of modern medicine that harms more then it
helps.
America's health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system. --
Walter Cronkite

For example, evidence shows that the drug makers Merck and Schering-Plough
have conducted several studies of their popular cholesterol medicine Zetia
that raise questions about its risks to the liver, but the companies have
never published those results. Partial results of the studies, alluded to in
documents on the Food and Drug Administration's Web site, raise questions
about whether Zetia can cause liver damage when used long term with other
cholesterol drugs called statins.

http://webletter.net/cybrary/Facts.aft.perp.igpact.html

http://www.rense.com/general7/gw.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
www.soiltheory.com
drceephd@insightbb.com - 19 Mar 2008 18:22 GMT
> Should you trust your oncologist?http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/

> Carolewww.cellsalts.netwww.soiltheory.com

Consider this as well:

Medical progress.

In former times, certain natives would be taught by an elder the ways
of witch doctory.

The docs would dress up in their costumes.
The docs would speak in an unknown jargon.
The docs might provide some pill, potion, or lotion to give the ill.
The docs might puncture the skin with foreign gunk to protect the
believer.
The docs might do surgery, but only the highest skilled could do it.
The docs would act to drive the evil spirits called demons and devils
out of the sick body.
The docs had great power in the community.
The docs were the wealthy of the community.

Compare this to modern allopathic medicine.

The docs are taught by elders the way of allopathic doctory.
The docs dress up in their costumes, either the scrubs or the white
coat and stethoscope.
The docs are taught a jargon unknown to the sufferers.
The docs provide pills, potions, and lotions to give to the ill.
The docs puncture the skin with poisons and toxins and pronounce you
protected.
The docs do surgery, but only the highest skilled are allowed to do
it.
The docs act to drive the evil spirits called germs and viruses  out
of the sick body.
The docs have great power in the community.
The docs are the wealthy of the community.

So just how has modern witch doctory changed over the last 3,000
years?

Is allopathic medicine really witch doctory or just another religion?

DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.
Carole - 21 Mar 2008 14:04 GMT
> Should you trust your oncologist?http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist
/

> Carolewww.cellsalts.netwww.soiltheory.com

Consider this as well:

Medical progress.

In former times, certain natives would be taught by an elder the ways
of witch doctory.

The docs would dress up in their costumes.
The docs would speak in an unknown jargon.
The docs might provide some pill, potion, or lotion to give the ill.
The docs might puncture the skin with foreign gunk to protect the
believer.
The docs might do surgery, but only the highest skilled could do it.
The docs would act to drive the evil spirits called demons and devils
out of the sick body.
The docs had great power in the community.
The docs were the wealthy of the community.

Compare this to modern allopathic medicine.

The docs are taught by elders the way of allopathic doctory.
The docs dress up in their costumes, either the scrubs or the white
coat and stethoscope.
The docs are taught a jargon unknown to the sufferers.
The docs provide pills, potions, and lotions to give to the ill.
The docs puncture the skin with poisons and toxins and pronounce you
protected.
The docs do surgery, but only the highest skilled are allowed to do
it.
The docs act to drive the evil spirits called germs and viruses  out
of the sick body.
The docs have great power in the community.
The docs are the wealthy of the community.

So just how has modern witch doctory changed over the last 3,000
years?

Is allopathic medicine really witch doctory or just another religion?

Carole > This is very good, and really it is right on the mark.
No doubt the witch doctors of the times thought they were "cutting edge" and
uptodate with their techniques.

Carole
www.cellsalts.net

DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.
Peter Moran - 19 Mar 2008 22:15 GMT
> Should you trust your oncologist?
> http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism.  --Dr.
> Tullio Simoncini (Oncologist)

Nonsense.   There has never ever been such a survery published anywhere.
Try and find one.  We would have heard of this many times over by now if it
were true.

Carole,  this is the idiot who thinks cancer is a fungus and that it can be
cured by bicarbonate.    Also, far from being a credible oncologist, this is
a doctor (supposedly) who cannot read a CT scan.   Remember?   ,CT scans
were wrongly labelled and interpreted on his own web site,

PM
Martin - 19 Mar 2008 22:40 GMT
>> Should you trust your oncologist?
>> http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>PM

I've seen two of his patients on television. Their reason for using
his treatment? They had looked into his eyes and they could tell he
wasn't lying when he told them he was going to cure him. And mind you,
he said that when he already lost his license to practice!
Carole - 20 Mar 2008 10:42 GMT
> >> Should you trust your oncologist?
> >> http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/
> >>
> >> Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent)
> >> would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the
> >> disease and its devastating effects on the entire human
rganism.  --Dr.
> >> Tullio Simoncini (Oncologist)
> >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> wasn't lying when he told them he was going to cure him. And mind you,
> he said that when he already lost his license to practice!

I think there's a little more to his treatment than merely trusting him by
his honest face.
Was the documentary some sort of pharmaceutical propaganda by any chance?

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
D. C. Sessions - 20 Mar 2008 15:11 GMT
> Was the documentary some sort of pharmaceutical propaganda by any chance?

Of course it was.  It was on television, which means that
the Illuminati allowed it -- thus it was propaganda.

| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
|    The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?"    |
+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Martin - 20 Mar 2008 18:00 GMT
>> >> Should you trust your oncologist?
>> >> http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>his honest face.
>Was the documentary some sort of pharmaceutical propaganda by any chance?

No, it was a consumer program where they showed that Simoncini had
licence yanked but still treated patients (he said: "I only give
advice, wink wink, nod nod"), that he can not read CT scans (as you
can see on his site), that a patient died while he was treating her
(sorry, while he was giving advice, wink wink, nod nod) and that at
least two of his patients don't need any other proof than the fact
that he looks like an honest guy. And they showed Simoncini saying
that conventional oncologists kill thousands of people every year, so
who are they to call him a charlatan. I think the guy is seriously
deluded, and judging by his suit, which was very nice even for an
Italian, he is making loads of money in the process.

>Carole
>www.cellsalts.net
Carole - 21 Mar 2008 14:18 GMT
> >> >> Should you trust your oncologist?
> >> >> http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> deluded, and judging by his suit, which was very nice even for an
> Italian, he is making loads of money in the process.

Simoncini is / was a qualified oncologist and its reasonable to say he knows
what he is doing.
The documentary was probably biased to portray him as incompetent.
What you don't seem to understand is that bicarb is a very good fungicide,
and it is quite likely that cancer is a fungus.
Conventional medicine doesn't yet understand the cause of cancer.

As simoncini says -

"The implications from my hypothesis that cancer is a fungus which can be
eradicated with sodium bicarbonate are that:
1) eighty years of genetic study and application has been for nothing,
especially considering that the genetic theory of cancer has never been
demonstrated;
2) the loss of millions, if not billions, of lives with all the suffering
has been for nothing;
3) the billions of dollars spent on chemotherapy medicine, radiotherapy,
etc. has been for nothing;
4) the recognition and prizes given to eminent researchers and professors
has been for nothing;
5) the oncologist could be replaced by the family doctor; and
6) the pharmaceutical industry will incur tremendous financial losses
(sodium bicarbonate is inexpensive and impossible to patent).
My methods have cured people for 20 years. Many of my patients recovered
completely from cancer, even in cases where official oncology had given up."

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
Martin - 21 Mar 2008 17:37 GMT
>> >> >> Should you trust your oncologist?
>> >> >> http://www.winningcancer.com/txt/should-you-trust-your-oncologist/
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>Simoncini is / was a qualified oncologist and its reasonable to say he knows
>what he is doing.

He *was* qualified. The unqualified him when he demonstrated that he
choose to ignore what he'd been taught in favor of very dangerous woo
that already killed several people.

>The documentary was probably biased to portray him as incompetent.

No it wasn't. They showed he lost his license, they showed he was
still treating patients despite that fact (sorry, I mean, just giving
advice, wink wink, nod nod) and they had an oncologist saying that he
talks nonsense.

>What you don't seem to understand is that bicarb is a very good fungicide,
>and it is quite likely that cancer is a fungus.

No it's not. We know what cancer is and it's not a fungus. It's the
DNA of your own cells gone wild. Now *why* that is isn't exactly
known, but it sure as hell isn't a fungus.

>Conventional medicine doesn't yet understand the cause of cancer.

Not in every case, but it's better than Simoncini's ideas, which he
simply makes up.

>As simoncini says -
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>especially considering that the genetic theory of cancer has never been
>demonstrated;

I wonder if he's had an accident that gave him brain damage or memory
loss. He did have an education as an oncologist, so why he would say
something so stupid I can not understand.

>2) the loss of millions, if not billions, of lives with all the suffering
>has been for nothing;
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>My methods have cured people for 20 years. Many of my patients recovered
>completely from cancer, even in cases where official oncology had given up."

And that's where is lying, plain and simple. And he can apparently do
it while still appearing to be an honest man to some. He doesn't have
20 years of patient files showing his therapy works. You probably have
an excuse for that, like that they have been confiscated by the
government or something, but sorry, that is your delusion, not the
truth.

>Carole
>www.cellsalts.net
Carole - 25 Mar 2008 14:31 GMT
> >Simoncini is / was a qualified oncologist and its reasonable to say he knows
> >what he is doing.
>
> He *was* qualified. The unqualified him when he demonstrated that he
> choose to ignore what he'd been taught in favor of very dangerous woo
> that already killed several people.

He had a high success rate, but not all patients survived.
If the death of a patient is reason to debar a doctor, why aren't all the
conventional oncologists struck off?

> >The documentary was probably biased to portray him as incompetent.
>
> No it wasn't. They showed he lost his license, they showed he was
> still treating patients despite that fact (sorry, I mean, just giving
> advice, wink wink, nod nod) and they had an oncologist saying that he
> talks nonsense.

He was a qualified oncologist and had a lot of success with his bicarb
method.
Why debar him in the first place?
The only reason is to protect the pharmaceutical cartel -- you can't patent
bicarb.

> >What you don't seem to understand is that bicarb is a very good fungicide,
> >and it is quite likely that cancer is a fungus.
>
> No it's not. We know what cancer is and it's not a fungus. It's the
> DNA of your own cells gone wild. Now *why* that is isn't exactly
> known, but it sure as hell isn't a fungus.

No, we don't know what cancer is.
they theorise its the DNA gone wrong but really it is a lesion where toxic
rubbish from the body is dumped, which then turns into cancer because the
environment is so bad. The tissue begins to break down and the fungus is
part of nature's tactics to return what is dead and dying back to the soil.

> >Conventional medicine doesn't yet understand the cause of cancer.
>
> Not in every case, but it's better than Simoncini's ideas, which he
> simply makes up.

So you say, and so conventional medicine would like us to believe.
However, there is a lot of repression of facts in medicine and innovation is
frowned upon.
There is virtually no way that anybody can come up with a cure because it
will be bought out, killed off and otherwise gotten rid of -- just like the
electric car and many other discoveries that would help humanity.

> >As simoncini says -
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> loss. He did have an education as an oncologist, so why he would say
> something so stupid I can not understand.

I wouldn't expect you to say anything else, which just goes to demonstrate
how mind controlled in your thinking you really are.

> >2) the loss of millions, if not billions, of lives with all the suffering
> >has been for nothing;
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> government or something, but sorry, that is your delusion, not the
> truth.

Yep, confiscated by the hospital where he worked.
Wouldn't any and all records remain the property of the hospital / facility
where he worked?

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
www.soiltheory.com
Peter Bowditch - 25 Mar 2008 21:28 GMT
>He was a qualified oncologist and had a lot of success with his bicarb
>method.
>Why debar him in the first place?
>The only reason is to protect the pharmaceutical cartel -- you can't patent
>bicarb.

The drug tamoxifen is used to treat certain cancers. It is not covered
by a patent, so according to your "logic" oncologists who prescribe it
are breaking the rules of the "pharmaceutical cartel". Why are they
allowed to get away with this?

Please explain.

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

MothWrangler - 26 Mar 2008 00:55 GMT
>>He was a qualified oncologist and had a lot of success with his bicarb
>>method.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Please explain.

Oh, com'on, the explanation is simple:

The Cartel (TINC) has allowed an exception, allowing the use of
tamoxifen to treat cancer, to its general prohibition against using
non-patented treatments, solely so folks like you can point to it and
thereby, counter the claim of people like Carole that The Cartel (TINC)
doesn't allow non-patented treatments.

The Cartel (TINC) is sneaky like that.

Signature

Proud member since 2007, WWWSC #1
Ann/Emma Anne #4

D. C. Sessions - 21 Mar 2008 18:03 GMT
> What you don't seem to understand is that bicarb is a very good fungicide,
> and it is quite likely that cancer is a fungus.

Sodium bicarbonate is a totally useless fungicide, since
it only inhibits fungi by raising the pH to lethal levels
and cranking up the osmotic pressure from saline imbalance.
That's fine if you're cleaning out a shower, but the trouble
is that there are plenty of fungi tolerate that kind of abuse
better than human tissues do.

We have fungi around here that live on rocks and in the soil.
So what, you may ask?  Well, the soil is basically a granitic
clay (loaded with soda) bound together with /caliche/
(carbonates).  You can extract sodium bicarbonate from it if
you want to, if not in a useful commercial process.  The
ground is so loaded with these salts that it fizzes if you
expose it to any kind of acid.

The soil fungus loves it, even while it's killing plants.

| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
|    The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?"    |
+---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Vern Nance - 20 Mar 2008 04:11 GMT
Regarding the statement that studies have shown that oncologists themselves
would refuse chemotherapy, here is one frequently cited survey:

" In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118
doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than three quarters of
them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung
cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and
were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. Of the
79 respondents, 64 said they would not consent to be in a trial containing
cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug Fifty-eight found all the trials
unacceptable."

While dated, it certainly lends credence to the idea that many oncologists
would themselves decline the treatment they routinely prescribe for their
patients.
Peter Moran - 20 Mar 2008 05:11 GMT
> Regarding the statement that studies have shown that oncologists
> themselves would refuse chemotherapy, here is one frequently cited survey:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> would themselves decline the treatment they routinely prescribe for their
> patients.

Even if an accurate report, this is NO support for the very general claim
that was being made i.e.  that 75% of oncologists would refuse any form of
chemotherapy for any condition.   It refers to a partticularly poor
prognosis cancer where the gains are generally small with any form of
chemotherapy, especially in those days.   If you asked the same oncologists
whether they would accept chemotherapy for leukemia or lymphoma or secondary
testicular cancer or breast cancer, the results would be spectacularly
different.

I agree that it is poor if doctors are subjecting patients to trials that
they would not undergo themsleves, but the information supplied does not
really allow us to know what is going on in the doctors' minds.

PM
Jan Drew - 20 Mar 2008 07:01 GMT
>> Regarding the statement that studies have shown that oncologists
>> themselves would refuse chemotherapy, here is one frequently cited
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
>We knew EXACTLY what was going on in the mind of Dr Wilson,
who deliberately and repeatedly filed lying reports.

Deliberately witheld information from Jesse's parents.
Do NOT report momkeys had died.
Thrid and forth time was warned, he ignored it.
Yet, he REMAINS ON STAFF.

Conclusion, one can NOT believe a word PM says.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.