 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / September 2004What's the matter with Peter Kolb? Apparently nothing at all.
The Kolb/Buteyko issue has always been based on dangers of the method. There were stories of people relying on it, not having any medication to hand and then suffering serious attacks, and of people not getting proper medication attention because doctors found the method irrational. Now, it seems the tide has turned. More and more mainstream asthma websites, particularly down under, are accepting Buteyko. See, significantly, http://www.everybody.co.nz/docsa_c/buteyko.htm "In summary: * there is some limited scientific evidence which suggests that Buteyko may have benefits for some people with asthma * there do not appear to be any obvious safety problems with the technique and the advice given by Buteyko to use relievers when required and continue with preventers in accordance with current medical advice. * individuals planning to try the technique should inform and discuss their intentions with their doctor, especially if they are contemplating any changes to their treatment * the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation has indicated that it would be willing to consider funding researchers with a scientifically valid study protocol to examine the Buteyko technique. More information about Buteyko can be found on their website." See also http://www.asthmaresearch.org.au/about/ with Asthma Research Online presenting the case made out for Buteyko by McGowan. So if in fact Buteyko is safe and is being accepted by docs. then it would be uncivilized, pharisaical and cranky to go on attacking it across the board. The fact that it seems scurrilous but still works might be the average guy's gut reaction to using traditional asthma drugs as being even more scurrilous. Why should so much effort be expended in making basically symptomatic drugs free of side effects? Why should relaxing breathing muscles as a long term asthma treatment be axiomatic? Why should not the inflammation of the airways be due to dysfunctional breathing etc. etc? Traditional asthma drug treatment cannot sail on with the status of a flagship of scientific medicine. If the success of Buteyko progresses further, it can only be a parody of scientific medicine and a super-scam. I personally found counting to slow down breathing in attacks highly effective. I got off asthma drugs and have since avoided them like the devil, but the Buteyko idea of healing asthma by simply breathing less was a load of crap for me. The mismatch of air and blood distribution in my lungs was not improved one little bit despite really heroic efforts fighting against exercise induced asthma. However, maybe concentrating on avoiding "deep breathing" (a mistranslation from the Russian?) might in practice mean concentrating on diaphragmatic breathing without noticing it and this would cure or at least take the sting out of asthma. Respectfully submitted, Richard Friedel <snip> > See also http://www.asthmaresearch.org.au/about/ with Asthma Research > Online presenting the case made out for Buteyko by McGowan. Perhaps he meant to post http://www.asthmaresearch.org.au/news/media/71.html <snip> Regards Norman Back First of all, the problem for me isn't Buteyko, it's the lies that Kolb has told. The fact that he states that asthma is reversible and no meds are needed don't hold true for the studies done by those in medical research, which show improved quality of life and reduction of meds. That's great, but how does it translate into asthma being reversible so no meds are needed, as Kolb claims? How does it translate into Buteyko can cure cancer, as Kolb has claimed in the past? As for studies done in Russia and the UK showing meds are no longer needed, it appears those studies were conducted by The Buteyko Centre - a group that would have a personal interest in the outcome. And as for claims that some have reversed their asthma and are no longer on meds - I'm guessing that may be true for a small subset, not the majority. Someone who is on an inhaler 2 to 4 times a day is mildly asthmatic, and the studies seem to target that group of people. This is no different than the studies done on respiratory care/breathing retraining done here in the U.S., which also show a reduction of meds and improved quality of life, as I've posted in the past. > First of all, the problem for me isn't Buteyko, it's the lies > that Kolb has told. The fact that he states that asthma is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a reduction of meds and improved quality of life, as I've posted > in the past. I was diagnosed as an asthmatic, while in hospital, at the age of 4. I started school a year late because my asthma was so bad. I was on continuous medication for asthma from the age of about 22. I am now in my 50s, started using Buteyko in Aug 98 and have now been free of all medication for 6 months and asthma symptoms for about a year. (It took so long to reach this stage because I'd been an asthmatic for so long. People who have suffered the condition for a shorter period or with less severity can expect a quicker result). Should I consider myself cured? That depends on the definition you use for the word cure. Some sample definitions are: a restoration to health, successful treatment of disease, a medicine or therapy that cures disease or relieve pain, term used when no sign of disease is present and a person remains disease-free for a long period. All of these seem to fit my current position and so it might be correct to say I am cured. I prefer the last one and I consider myself to be in remission. Both you and Peter are right, depending on the definition of cure that is used and how long a "long period" is. Regards Norman Back You've practiced Buteyko for six years and have only been med free for six months? Wow, what's the experience and timeframe for the non-experts? > > First of all, the problem for me isn't Buteyko, it's the lies > > that Kolb has told. The fact that he states that asthma is [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Regards > Norman Back By the way, I had asthma for at least 33 years - probably longer, but not officially diagnosed - have been symptom free and off all meds for fifteen months and haven't done any breathing exercises. Amazing, isn't it? > You've practiced Buteyko for six years and have only been med > free for six months? Wow, what's the experience and timeframe [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Regards > > Norman Back One more thing. I doubt anyone in medicine would be so quick to connect dots that have a span of six years between them. > By the way, I had asthma for at least 33 years - probably longer, > but not officially diagnosed - have been symptom free and off all [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > > Regards > > > Norman Back > One more thing. I doubt anyone in medicine would be so quick to > connect dots that have a span of six years between them. That is just the joke of it - isn't it? 6 years? Even if we assume that it was from B* - it still not not a track record that is likely to attract a lot of converts or be called a smashing success. I can't imagine getting nay of my patients to do this for 6 years waiting for the effect to kick in. Comments about not holding your breath waiting for it to happen come to mind.  Signature00doc >>One more thing. I doubt anyone in medicine would be so quick to >>connect dots that have a span of six years between them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > smashing success. I can't imagine getting nay of my patients to do > this for 6 years waiting for the effect to kick in. The initial benefits kicked in in 3 days (reduced Ventolin use, asthma symptoms and an improved feeling of well-being). It was the reversing my dependency on steroids that took the time. I've already responded to this more fully in another part of this thread. Regards Norman Back > > One more thing. I doubt anyone in medicine would be so quick to > > connect dots that have a span of six years between them. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > 00doc It reminds me of those alternative health nuts who claim that if you take echinacea when you get a cold you'll be feeling much better in about six days. Yeah -just like you will if you don't take anything at all. For all we know, his triggers changed or he was doing a better job of avoiding them, or some of the antibiotics he's been on may have knocked out bacteria if that was the cause. Of course, since he's been in remission before, that's probably what it is now. Kolb apparently brought over Norman because he got tired of being triple teamed, and in doing so has exposed the other moderator of the yahoo (what a fitting name) group as being no expert and not even a long term benefactor of Buteyko. Six years of practice and he's only been off of meds for six months, and doesn't feel he's in his third remission. And now he's denying he's an expert. I'll say! > Kolb apparently brought over Norman because he got tired of being > triple teamed, and in doing so has exposed the other moderator of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > he's in his third remission. And now he's denying he's an > expert. I'll say! ' Not only that. His remissions all had to do with changes of environment. Hey, when I had asthma I was better in the hospital too. I suspected it had to do with the extra great air cleaners they have. Has he again changed locales? Joy > By the way, I had asthma for at least 33 years - probably longer, > but not officially diagnosed - have been symptom free and off all > meds for fifteen months and haven't done any breathing exercises. > Amazing, isn't it? No. Not really. I had a spontaneous remission when I was sent to a convalescent home at the age of 14. It happened within a few weeks of my arrival, for no apparent reason. I still remember the amazing feeling of being able to run around freely, for the first time, without worrying about an asthma attack. Unfortunately the remission only lasted a few months after I was judged asthma free and allowed back home. The asthma returned worse than before. Again, at the age of 21 I had a sudden short period of remission, of about 6 months, after a long stay in hospital following a road accident. Mostly the asthma seemed to be in control, not me. I truly hope your remission is permanent. However the remission I have from Buteyko is different, it was not spontaneous, my asthma improved slowly as I learnt to master the Buteyko method. In the first year I only needed one anti-biotic intervention for my asthma instead my usual two. In the following 5 I have not need any anti-biotic intervention for my asthma at all. With the help of Buteyko, I have now completed the longest asthma free period I have ever experienced in my life. Buteyko has given me control over my asthma. Regards Norman Back > You've practiced Buteyko for six years and have only been med > free for six months? Wow, what's the experience and timeframe > for the non-experts? I'm a Buteyko therapy user, not a practitioner or an expert and have never claimed to be one. Considering the position I was in when I first started Buteyko, asthma worsening year-on-year, even with increased medication and considering an increase in Becotide from 800mcg per day (the max for minimal steroid side effects) to 1200 or even 1600 per day (where I could expect some steroid side effect) I am very satisfied with my current position. The initial benefits from Buteyko (reduced Ventolin use and an improved feeing of well-being) occurred after about 3 days. So initial results can be quick. When I started Buteyko, becoming asthma free was my principle goal, being medication free as well is a real bonus. While it did take some time to become mediation free, I took a very cautious approach (mediation reduction not being my principle aim). When I had been completely free from all asthma symptoms for at least a month, I would reduce my Becotide by a small amount (reducing by not more than one third. e.g. 800 to 600mcg). Them wait a month to ensure stabilisation before considering my next reduction. A much slower reduction rate than is usually recommended by the medical profession. Regards Norman Back You mean, you weren't cured 3 years ago when I was reading the B group? How funny I should find out now that you were singing the praises and you weren't even cured?!!!!! That is just like the guy from Canada who said how great B worked for him, except he couldn't get out of bed due to his COPD. With evidence like that, I'm sure you will go far. Common sense minded people like me can read in between the lines. You must be on some kind of euphoric high to expect that won't belie your previous statements all these years. Joy > > You've practiced Buteyko for six years and have only been med > > free for six months? Wow, what's the experience and timeframe [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Regards > Norman Back > You mean, you weren't cured 3 years ago when I was reading the B group? This information was available to you at the time at http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/norman.htm . Whether I was cured or not at that time depends on your definition of cure. Regards Norman Back > > You mean, you weren't cured 3 years ago when I was reading the B group? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Regards > Norman Back Or exaggeration. Joy > > > You mean, you weren't cured 3 years ago when I was reading the B group? > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Joy Or the meaning of "is"... > > First of all, the problem for me isn't Buteyko, it's the lies > > that Kolb has told. The fact that he states that asthma is > > reversible and no meds are needed don't hold true for the studies > > done by those in medical research, which show improved quality of > > life and reduction of meds. .... Many people who get asthma find the idea of taking muscle relaxing drugs whenever they are SOB repugnant. They believe the "science" ("inherent wisdom" would be a better expression) behind Buteyko. They have no desire to take a crash course in physiology. The arguments against Buteyko seem in the present situation to be pharisaical. Possibly the success of Buteyko is getting people to steel themselves (by more or less strenuous breathing exercises) and vowing to take less muscle relaxing drugs. For another copnvincing story of a Buteyko recovery, see http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/ian_blan.htm. Regards, Richard Friedel [Norman wrote]> > Both you and Peter are right, depending on the definition of cure that > is used and how long a "long period" is. > > Regards > Norman Back > > > First of all, the problem for me isn't Buteyko, it's the lies > > > that Kolb has told. The fact that he states that asthma is [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Regards > > Norman Back >\ The arguments > against Buteyko seem in the present situation to be pharisaical. Only you would use the word pharisaical instead of hypocritical, and only you would end the debate there instead of pointing to WHY you think so. After all of this debating and goading and so forth, you've suddenly turned on a dime and feel those against Buteyko are hypocrites, when just days ago you posted opinions that were anti-Buteyko. Who is the hypocrite? Not to mention the fact that the real medical research done on Buteyko, which proves the lies that have been told here, are ignored by you - yet you point to isolated studies to strengthen your own argument when you see fit. Again, utter hypocrisy. I've come to think you're nothing more than a troll.....just like Merlin, Norman and Peter Kolb, and I think I'm going to stop feeding you. >The arguments >> against Buteyko seem in the present situation to be [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >you're nothing more than a troll.....just like Merlin, Norman and >Peter Kolb, and I think I'm going to stop feeding you. >>The arguments >>> against Buteyko seem in the present situation to be [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>you're nothing more than a troll.....just like Merlin, Norman and >>Peter Kolb, and I think I'm going to stop feeding you. So Mo, you'll be robin' the agape, once and for all? http://www.northrup.org/Photos/robin/low/robin0242.JPG > > > First of all, the problem for me isn't Buteyko, it's the lies > > > that Kolb has told. The fact that he states that asthma is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Many people who get asthma find the idea of taking muscle relaxing > drugs whenever they are SOB repugnant. That is natural and not at all unique to asthma. People, in general, do not like being told they are sick or that they have to take daily medication. I see it all the time with diabetics, hypertensives, hyperlipidemics, etc. > They believe the "science" > ("inherent wisdom" would be a better expression) behind Buteyko. They > have no desire to take a crash course in physiology. The arguments > against Buteyko seem in the present situation to be pharisaical. Given the above, that people try to deny illness and escape medication, it is not at all suprising that there are people who will emotionally invest in a theory that tells them they are not sick and do not need to take medicine. This is not the same as saying they are finding B* scientifically valid or inherently wise - it is just that they are being told what they want to hear. > Possibly the success of Buteyko is getting people to steel themselves > (by more or less strenuous breathing exercises) and vowing to take > less muscle relaxing drugs. That certainly seems to be an effect of it. I'm not at all sure they have shown that this effect represents a success. <anecdote snipped> The problem with anecdotes is that they are easily fictionalized or at least innaccurately presented and that they do not necessarily speak to the general reality (look at Norman for a good example - he initially presents as a successfull "cure" but upon further examination it is fiction). People can post anecdotes for all kinds of strange occurrences but it doesn't mean those things will happen to you. Besides, if we play it that way it would not be hard to fill the group with anecdotes of people who couldn't breath and were saved by conventional medicine. The stories really prove nothing. If the theory worked as well as the anecdotalists suggest then there would be no difficulty at all showing it in studies - yet despite several attempts they have not been able to do so. When looking at the studies or watching others bicker about them keep one thing in mind - the B*-istas don't claim that a small subset or even just a majority can be helped by their theory. They claim that nearly everyone can be cured. One can look at the studies and point out flaws and suggest that some small effect cannot be excluded or even a big effect in a small number of people. However, it is clear and unarguable that B* does not produse the magnitude of success that they try to claim. Signature00doc > The Kolb/Buteyko issue has always been based on dangers of the method. No, the issue shas always been the lies that are told in an attempt to create a new syndrome and to promote and umproved treatment that encourages people to stop their meds. > Now, it seems the tide has turned. More and more mainstream asthma > websites, particularly down under, are accepting Buteyko. See, > significantly, A few Aussie websites listing it is hardly a tide turning. > So if in fact Buteyko is safe and is being accepted by docs. 1) It has not been shown to be safe in a realistic setting. Just because no one out of a few hundred in controlled studies, monitored by conventional doctors, died does not make it safe as it is usually practiced. 2) Nothing you have posted usggests that it is being accepted by docs. > Why should not the inflammation of the airways be due to > dysfunctional breathing etc. etc? That is not the question. The question is, "why should it be," and the burden of providing an answer lies with the people claiming it is. > I personally found counting to slow down breathing in attacks highly > effective. OK- but that it not the B* method. All that shows is what I have been saying for years - that many people can relax and muddle through some attacks. It has nothign to do with chronic hyperventilation, CO2 levels, or B*. Signature00doc >........ Dear CBI, MD, We are agreed that the method's theory is scurrilous. It does not achieve its aim of changing CO2 levels in clinical testing. But it does work. If, as seems likely, it works by discouraging the use of muscle relaxing drugs, then this challenge should be looked in research on orthodox treatment as a ethical duty. Subject to future epidemiological data, it does not seem responsible to reject Buteyko out of hand any longer. On the question of scurrilous treatment, the dedication to in vitro (test tube) research on asthma is understandable to the extent that most asthmatics are convinced that their condition is due to a bug or a bad environment so that drugs (the only product of such in vitro research) would be the logical solution. On at least one critical point current research for its part scurrilously insists on taking the in vitro (molecular or cellular biological) approach where muscle training would seem more obvious. By simple "Internet mining" and not purporting to act as an academically trained asthma expert the following studies are to be found showing that a healthy person can reverse airway constriction by a deep inspiration and that an asthmatic cannot, see Duration of deep inspiration and subsequent airway constriction in vivo. J Asthma. 2003 Apr;40(2):119-24. Reversibility of induced bronchoconstriction by deep inspiration in asthmatic and normal subjects. Eur Respir J. 1989 Apr;2(4):331-9. However such researchers see no reason to cease their sojourn in their ivory tower absolving them of the duty to pursue any muscle training approach if they are to retain the title of "asthma experts" rather than pharmaceutical ideologists. Given the plausibility of the Peper study (http://www.i-breathe.com/thb12/Incentiv.htm http://www.bfe.org/protocol/pro10eng.htm) it is a doctor's obvious moral duty to inform a patient of the two approaches, namely (a) the test-tube research approach and (b) the Peper approach which shows how to take an effective relaxing deep breath by training and make drugs unnecessary. I can only repeat my plea for a return to the the moral values so well explained in the Good Samaritan parable. It is often necessary to endanger one's own cherished beliefs to help others. Please accept again my respectful feelings for your dedication to this newsgroup and patience in arguing your alas so obviously misdirected point of view. Richard Friedel > >........ > > Dear CBI, MD, > > We are agreed that the method's theory is scurrilous. It does not > achieve its aim of changing CO2 levels in clinical testing. Yes - we do agree on that. I would go one step further and point out that there is no evidence of a CO2 issue that needs correcting. However, it is clear that B* does not change CO2 levels in any currently detectable manner. > But it > does work. We agree that it does have some impact on the use of rescue medications. I would debate whether this indicates that it "works." It most certainly does not work in the sense that the claimed cure for asthma, or even reversal of its underlying pathology, is produced. > If, as seems likely, it works by discouraging the use of > muscle relaxing drugs, then this challenge should be looked in > research on orthodox treatment as a ethical duty. I'm not sure I follow you here. In order for it to be an ethical duty there would have to be evidence that the use of the inhalers - as they are commonly used by the people in the studies - is harmful. I know you believe that this is so but I have not found your arguments to be persuasive. > Subject to future epidemiological data, it does not seem responsible > to reject Buteyko out of hand any longer. I disagree completely. It does have some potential to harm as has been outlined in detail many times before. Briefly, it diverts attention, effort, and funds - all things that are not in unimited supply - away from therapies with proven benenfit and often involves questionable and potentially dangerous advice regarding medications. I would agree that the research on it suggests that perhaps more emphasis should be placed on trying to determine and them communicate when relief inhalers really are needed. > On the question of scurrilous treatment, the dedication to in vitro > (test tube) research on asthma is understandable to the extent that > most asthmatics are convinced that their condition is due to a bug or > a bad environment so that drugs (the only product of such in vitro > research) would be the logical solution. I think the part that you fail to appreciate is that this is only an incomplete, and hence only partially true, characterization of the current research and treatment of asthma. > On at least one critical point current research for its part > scurrilously insists on taking the in vitro (molecular or cellular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that a healthy person can reverse airway constriction by a deep > inspiration and that an asthmatic cannot, see I think all this does is lend supprt to my conclusion above. > However such researchers see no reason to cease their sojourn in > their ivory tower absolving them of the duty to pursue any muscle > training approach if they are to retain the title of "asthma experts" > rather than pharmaceutical ideologists. I think you are way off base. Different researchers are investigating different aspects and others are trying to integrate various components. The system, when seen as a whole has elements that are both deconstructionist and integrative. Just because one researcher concentrates his efforts on one area does not mean that he find the others to be invalid or unworthy. It is just that the days of one person researching all known aspects are over and we need specialists. Respiratory treatments are being researched and they are being applied to clinical settings. This has been pointed out to you many times and for some reason you simply refuse to accept it, instead preferring to claim conspiracies, ignorance, and corruption. Your statments of just being a humble "Internet miner" and not an expert are disengenuous as you then go on to make some rather shocking accusations against people who do legitimately claim to be experts. > I can only repeat my plea for a return to the the moral values so well > explained in the Good Samaritan parable. It is often necessary to > endanger one's own cherished beliefs to help others. You would do well to apply some introspection about this yourself. Signature00doc Dear CBI, MD, You fail to answer my point about the integrity of asthma researchers. Are they perhaps morally insane? By turning a blind eye to the possibility of remedying muscular weakness by physiotherapy to take a deep breath and hence overcome bronchoconstriction as a key asthma symptom they seem to be acting as irresponsibly as Julius Kelp in the Nutty Professor, or is by some quirk Jerry Lewis only known abroad? See also E. Murphy's remake about the 400 pound professor who transforms into a self-centered, testostoronally-hyped fitness freak. Who really wants test-tube athletics and test-tube muscular development, which according to Weiner (Chest 1992, 1357-61) plays a key role in asthma treatment. Yours as always, Richard Friedel > Dear CBI, MD, > > You fail to answer my point about the integrity of asthma researchers. > Are they perhaps morally insane? For "are they perhaps morally insane?" please read "why do they have such odd ideas?" R.F. > The Kolb/Buteyko issue has always been based on dangers of the method. > There were stories of people relying on it, not having any medication > to hand and then suffering serious attacks, and of people not getting > proper medication attention because doctors found the method > irrational. Did you get that from your days on the B board? I have never heard of people not getting medication because their doctors thought the method irrational. What was that? Vendictive behavior? I would have thought they would have provided medical care even though the patient was undergoing an unapproved experiement. > Now, it seems the tide has turned. More and more mainstream asthma > websites, particularly down under, are accepting Buteyko. See, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > * there is some limited scientific evidence which suggests that > Buteyko may have benefits for some people with asthma But what are those benefits? They can go without albuterol? That wasn't good enough for me. I had terrible side effects from the steroids - even inhaled, so I was looking to reduce that medication. Studies have been showing no reduction in inhaled steroids. > * there do not appear to be any obvious safety problems with the > technique and the advice given by Buteyko to use relievers when > required and continue with preventers in accordance with current > medical advice. That counterdicts what you wrote above. Would you like to explain yourself? > * individuals planning to try the technique should inform and > discuss their intentions with their doctor, especially if they are > contemplating any changes to their treatment > * the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation has indicated that it > would be willing to consider funding researchers with a scientifically > valid study protocol to examine the Buteyko technique. > More information about Buteyko can be found on their website." > > See also http://www.asthmaresearch.org.au/about/ with Asthma Research > Online presenting the case made out for Buteyko by McGowan. I believe we have already covered why this paper seems so distorted. > So if in fact Buteyko is safe and is being accepted by docs. then it > would be uncivilized, pharisaical and cranky to go on attacking it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be axiomatic? Why should not the inflammation of the airways be due to > dysfunctional breathing etc. etc? Why should inflammation be due to disfunctional breathing? What is the evidence of that. Even your own quoted researchers have retracted? Don' t you remember? > Traditional asthma drug treatment cannot sail on with the status of a > flagship of scientific medicine. If the success of Buteyko progresses [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > at least take the sting out of asthma. Respectfully submitted, > Richard Friedel So you are saying you now longer have attacks, but you fight for air during exercise? That seems to be the opposite of what noman is saying. He thinks the measure of why B works is the new found capacity to exercise instead of standard testing. So here we are, right back where we were. No one on this board can make any certain conclusions. But because they have been such distorters of the truth, I wouldn't believe it based on the claims of a couple of people, particularly these people. It particularly bothers me that they don't realize that the theory makes no sense. But I assume that sooner or later, medical science will figure it out. I know that it will turn out that some of us have an infection though and that our asthma was not caused by overbreathing. Anyone else out there is permitted to draw their own conclusions. Anything you see on the internet though................. Joy |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2009 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.