 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2006A Parent Uses the Preventive Method of Drs Colgate, Young
Dear Prevention minded friends, Subject: An engineer helps his children avoid entry in to nearsightedness. Re: The primate eye behaves as expected. Re: It seems the parents must FIRST figure out that there children MUST begin wearing the plus at zero" diopters -- or else accept the consequences of NOT wearing the plus. Some parents finally "wake up" to the need for prevention at the threshold as an "now or never" choice. The HELP their children make systematic use of the plus to AVOID even entry into myopia. The Oakley-Young study suggests this preventive possibility, in that the un-protected eye went down by -2 diopters in four years, while the plus group did not go down. Denis' report -- simply confirms that this type of preventive success is possible. Obviously this type of dedication and support can NEVER be prescribed. Thus parental "do it yourself seems to be the only way. In the future there will be ODs who will ASSIST with prevention of this nature -- but the parent and child will have to make the commitment to doing so. Thus making the use of the prevetive plus might seem "tedious" but it is better than the alternative -- in MY OPINION. Here is the discussion for your interest. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Myopia Prevention: Theory and Practic By Denis Alarie, P. Eng. To: Mr. Howard C. Howland W201 Seeley G Mudd Hall Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 USA Dear Sir: About your ongoing research on the development of the eye. It was with a great deal of interest that I read an article in Discover magazine in the October 1995 Issue concerning your ongoing work on the development of the eye and its relation to bio feedback. I come from a family of 7 where both the parents are with normal vision and where all 5 of the children were nearsigthed and read a lot. I graduated from Queen's University in 1977 with a first class degree in Civil engineering and also graduated with courses in Genetics. This interestingly enough, gave me a background in evolution, genetics, mechanics and physics. I had believed since I was about 15 that their was a causal link between eye development and Myopia and indeed was immensely interested when I read an article supporting that position. At first (around 1972) I had hopes that by carefully managing the use of my eyes I would be able to reverse the myopia about (- 1 dioptre ). This I theorized would be done by using reading glasses to simulate an at rest condition. I experimented with various lenses used while reading and studying ranging from +1.5 dioptre to + 2.5 dioptre, all the while thinking of and studying the structure of the eye to see if I could gain a better understanding of the process. Although my eyes never improved they did not get any worse from a refractory point of view. It was relatively easy to experiment since my eyes did not have any astigmatism. I could therefore purchase glasses at the drug store for reading. I also talked my eye doctor into prescribing glasses at -0.75 dioptre that I would wear while attending classes. This did not do anything even though I played around with this concept for years. One thing that it did do was make me more aware of the minor changes which seemed to occur with my eyes due to atmospheric pressure, influence of alcohol and marijuana use, reading, driving, smoking. After I graduated 1977, I married in 1978 and had a family. My wife was a graduate nurse at University of Toronto and was mildly myopic with -0.50 in the right eye and -0.75 in the left eye. She did not wear her glasses which probably helped to prevent her vision from changing further. We have two daughters aged 15 and 11 both of whom have eyes that are almost perfect as far as spherical corrections are concerned they are both at 0 dioptre +/- 0.25. From the time that they were young I have encouraged good eye habits in both of them, ie don't sit too close to the TV, Head up when they walk Etc. When we moved to Timmins in 1987 we went to see an eye doctor by the name of Al MacIvor. He was talked into prescribing reading glasses for both of the kids. My reasoning was that since my eyes had stabilized at about -1.00 to -1.25 dioptre that reading glasses of +1.25 dioptre would probably be about the right level for them. Al said that both of the girls had very little reserve in their eyes and would both be myopic by the time they were 15. He looked at me with a bit of a glazed look in his eyes when I started talking to him about my ideas and probably thought I was talking about pyramid glasses etc. I insisted that the prescription not contain any cylindrical corrections. This now 1995 and the girls are fine. Their eyes basically have not changed in 8 years. They both are avid readers and computer users and they both wear their reading glasses. In a further elaboration to the above I have noticed that in the workplace where I work there is a very high incidence of occupational myopia in office workers. Truck drivers never develop myopia. Similar to your observations about the pilots who have good vision prior to their studies and poor vision after. I am not looking for anything from this. Just trying to help where I can and enjoying the chance to finally be able to transmit my information to someone who takes it seriously and has the professional credentials and interest in pursuing it further . Sincerely Yours Denis Alarie, P. Eng. That's fascinating, Otis. Perhaps you'd care to answer the following questions: 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard? 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens, the myopia was prevented? 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how? 4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does this in humans, can you cite your source for this claim? 5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your position. 6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this convergence disorder? 7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm states: Quote:"A percentage of children may have difficulty "accepting" a large add because of the strong linkage in the human visual system between accommodation and convergence (turning the eyes inward when looking at something close). As a viewed object approaches the eyes, accommodation and convergence increase in proportion to each other. Over thousands of years, the brain has learned that this is the normal situation. Consequently, accommodation stimulates convergence and vice versa. Thus, if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal binocular vision is interfered with." Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses? 8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product? 9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr. Deakins? 10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until, that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you received any money for this book. 11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website? 12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia 13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion" optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you please provide it? 14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to sell both your and his book? 15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is, at this time, a myope? There are several important observations and comments to be made regarding this post. First and foremos is that the Oakley-Young study does not apply to axial myopia. For their subjects, they selected mypopes with accommodative-convergence dysfunction, who are particulalry susceptible to the effects of bifocals, and who represent a minority subset of all myopes. The second comment is that the engineer and his wife were very, very low myopes, well within the range of pseudomyopia. Since axial myopia has a hereditary basis, it is not surprising that the offspring of these parents would not have axial myopia. The true incidence of myopia in that age group is on the order of 25 - 40%, based upon my own surveys. Naturally, not being a vision scientist, Otis does not understand these distinctions, and continues to make fallacious arguments. Based upon the sudden spike in his posts, it would appear that Otis is on another "up" cycle. DrG > Dear Prevention minded friends, > [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > > Denis Alarie, P. Eng. Sorry folks, but apparently I cannot spell this morning, the reason being that I am wearing an old pair of progressive lenses and am having trouble seeing the text. Foremos=foremost, mypopes=myopes, particulalry=particularly. > There are several important observations and comments to be made > regarding this post. First and foremos is that the Oakley-Young study > does not apply to axial myopia. For their subjects, they selected > mypopes with accommodative-convergence dysfunction, who are > particulalry susceptible to the effects of bifocals, and who represent > a minority subset of all myopes. DrG > Sorry folks, but apparently I cannot spell this morning, the reason > being that I am wearing an old pair of progressive lenses and am having > trouble seeing the text. You might find that reading glasses are better for reading. The reason for that is that it is hard for the eyes to find the exact portions of the panes which are good for reading text at same particular distance. (That is a fact that not everybody learns from their eye-care professional.) Single-vision reading glasses, to prescription, are very cheap from Zenni, and some other Internet advertisers. Earlier you mentioned that there is a hereditary basis for "axial myopia". Is that perhaps to say that people with big eyeballs are more likely than others to become myopic? Or is it to say that certain people are genetically apt to develop ocular tensions that stress their eyeballs into becoming unnaturally long.? How about the very pretty young Asian extreme myope who was here a short time back? Maybe we should ask her about her heredity? Can you figure out how much axial lengthening it would take to produce her degree of myopia? -- Dicky Dicky> How about the very pretty young Asian extreme myope who was here a short time back? Maybe we should ask her about her heredity? Can you figure out how much axial lengthening it would take to produce her degree of myopia? Otis> As you may recall, a woman said that her 3 year-old child had 20/60 vision. Otis> So they put her into a -10 diopter lens. Otis> When you do this to a young pirmate eye -- the refracive STATE rapidly FOLLOWS the applied minus lens. Otis> I would expect this 3 year-old to wind up as a -20 diopter kid -- when she reached 20 years old. Otis> Just the natural response of the primate eye to a "delta" in the accommodation system. Best, Otis >Dicky> How about the very pretty young Asian extreme myope who was >here [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >rapidly >FOLLOWS the applied minus lens. That brings up some interesting questions that, perhaps, you would answer. Please focus on #3: 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly in ANY regard? 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens, the myopia was prevented? 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how? 4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this claim? 5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your position. 6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this convergence disorder? 7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm states: [quote]"A percentage of children may have difficulty "accepting" a large add because of the strong linkage in the human visual system between accommodation and convergence (turning the eyes inward when looking at something close). As a viewed object approaches the eyes, accommodation and convergence increase in proportion to each other. Over thousands of years, the brain has learned that this is the normal situation. Consequently, accommodation stimulates convergence and vice versa. Thus, if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal binocular vision is interfered with."[/quote] [b]Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?[/b] 8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product? 9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr. Deakins? 10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until, that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you received any money for this book. 11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website? 12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia 13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion" optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you please provide it? 14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to sell both your and his book? 15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is, at this time, a myope? > Dicky> How about the very pretty young Asian extreme myope who was > here [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Otis I feel bad for her but I understand. That 6 year old "myope" and her parents would take their chances listening to the doctors than anyone else. The strange thing is she sees 20/60 with or without glasses so they think she either has amblyopia or a deformed crystaline lens and are even thinking of giving her clear lens extraction surgury which would kill off all her accomodation, have lots of risks and still not guarantee she sees better than 20/60 if its amlyopia. I dont see how giving her a -10 glasses would do any good if it doesnt improve her BCVA but I guess if it makes her myopic, they want to give her clear lens extraction anyway. Dear Ace, Since I know the results of the primate studies -- when you put a -3 diopter lens on them -- it is almost certain what will happen to a child's refractive STATE when you put her into a -10 diopter lens. This is were "training" can lead people to do things -- that the primate data SUGGESTS should not be done. I would bet that there are second-opinion ODs -- who, if it were THEIR child --would do everything in their power to NOT put a child at 20/60 into a -10 diopters lens. That is the true meaning of an honest second-opnion. Acthins or choices you will make for your own children -- in similar circumstances. Best, Otis > Dear Ace, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Otis I dont think the parents even care if she quickly enters stair-case myopia, what they are worried about is her UCVA and BCVA is only 20/60. Her doctors suggested giving her -10 glasses was worth a shot in slowly improving her 20/60 BCVA. She will probably become myopic as a side effect but if theres any improvement in her BCVA its a success. Dear Ace. It is indeed difficult to deal with parents on this subject. I suggested a "second-opinion", but the parent followed the -10 diopter recommendation. Once a decision, or choice like that is made -- there is no "reversing" it. It takes time to develop 20/20 vision -- and as some ODs know -- younger children do not have it. They will have 20/40 or maybe 20/50. Typically this is ignored for 3 year-old kids. I mean, why the hell would a 3 year-old need 20/20 vision?? But, again, that is a matter of the "second-opinion". Best, Otis > Dear Ace. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Otis Yeah ... the ol' plus lens. That would have fixed her. It straightens curved spines, can solve the Middle East crisis, AND should be able to replace fossil fuels in another year or so. Idiot. > Dear Ace. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Otis Good point, maybe her brain just hasnt yet adapted to seeing. Although her optometrist said she was -10 something with a retinoscope and some specalists think she may have an abnormally shaped crystaline lens. We havent heard from her parents in many months and may never know the true story. acema...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Dear Ace. > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > havent heard from her parents in many months and may never know the > true story. I presume you know, however, that this won't stop Otis from making assumptions, then presenting them as supporting evidence for his antiquated notions, right? We are never going to know the full "story". It is very hard to suggest a "go slow" or "wait" policy -- but I think that would have been the better (second-opinion) idea in this case. I mean, what the hell was the rush??? The kid could function with 20/60 vision. Hell the state of Georgia and Florida have VA req. of 20/60 and 20/70. There was no good reason to put the kid in a -10 dioper lens. But I can see only one future for this kid -- her eyes "adapt" to that -10 dioper lens -- same as the primate -- with a strong "down" momvement to -20 diopers or so. That is a profoundy tragic future for that 3 year-old child. Just one man's opinion. Otis >We are never going to know the full "story". > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >There was no good reason to put the kid in >a -10 dioper lens. That YOU know of, but ... you're an idiot. > We are never going to know the full "story". > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Otis well hopefully she wont go "down" to -20 that would be very extreme and unusual. I know no one with eyes that bad and I have lots of friends who wear their wretched evil minus lens ALL THE TIME, even for reading! They are "only" about a -5 to -7. I think this 3 year old and her parents will realize something is wrong long before her eyes go "down" too far. Her 20/60 vision will quickly become 20/200 and they will realize the -10 are WAY too strong! >> We are never going to know the full "story". >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >too far. Her 20/60 vision will quickly become 20/200 and they will >realize the -10 are WAY too strong! I'm quite certain they will feel edified by your enlightened and educated opinion. You should feel very proud for having helped their daughter like this. Idiot. > Acthins or choices you will make for your own children Are "acthins" as tasty as Wheat Thins? Is the lisp a side effect of the ECT? > > Sorry folks, but apparently I cannot spell this morning, the reason > > being that I am wearing an old pair of progressive lenses and am having [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Single-vision reading glasses, to prescription, are very cheap from Zenni, > and some other Internet advertisers. I actually prefer the very expensive Hoya Summit ECP with Crizal Alize coating in a set of Oliver Peoples frames that I wear over my Acuvue Oasys contact lenses. Unfortunately, the one's I wear in the morning without my contact lenses are at least 10 years old, when I was -4.50. I am now -3.25. > Earlier you mentioned that there is a hereditary basis for "axial myopia". > Is that perhaps to say that people with big eyeballs are more likely than > others to become myopic? Or is it to say that certain people are genetically > apt to develop ocular tensions that stress their eyeballs into becoming > unnaturally long.? It is pretty much established that there is a genetic basis for axial myopia, which means that the posterior chamber elongates via some mechanism. It is the mechanism that we seem to be arguing over incessantly. > How about the very pretty young Asian extreme myope who was here > a short time back? Maybe we should ask her about her heredity? Can you > figure out how much axial lengthening it would take to produce her degree > of myopia? Certain Asian populations indeed have a higher incidence of myopia. DrG > I actually prefer the very expensive Hoya Summit ECP with Crizal Alize > coating in a set of Oliver Peoples frames that I wear over my Acuvue > Oasys contact lenses. Unfortunately, the one's I wear in the morning > without my contact lenses are at least 10 years old, when I was -4.50. > I am now -3.25. Oh my gods! You're using 33% STRONGER minus lens than what you "need''! Haven't you heard about "staircase myopia"? Wait..........you went UP the "down" staircase and became less nearsighted over ten years. Please, please tell us how you did it! PS: If you have a current prescription, I can help you get appropriate new spectacles. LB, O.D. > > I actually prefer the very expensive Hoya Summit ECP with Crizal Alize > > coating in a set of Oliver Peoples frames that I wear over my Acuvue [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Wait..........you went UP the "down" staircase and became less > nearsighted over ten years. Please, please tell us how you did it! Yes, I did go DOWN the UP staircase, or is it UP the DOWN staircase? The problem is that I cannot seem to get down below -3.25, no matter how long I wear my over-minused glasses. Who knows that I might not become plano if I quit wearing my -4.25's in the morning. > PS: If you have a current prescription, I can help you get appropriate > new spectacles. Hey, I'm a typical contact lens wearer who doesn't want to invest anything in spectacles I only wear first thing in the morning. Maybe I should entice myself with a discount coupon from myself, say 50% off? > Based upon the sudden spike in his posts, > it would appear that Otis is on another > "up" cycle. Off his lithium again. -MT MT> Off his lithium again. Otis> The usual "ad-homonin" attack yet again. And yes, Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Colgate, Dr. Holand, Steve Leung, and many other second-opinion (preventive) people are "off their lithium". Otis > > Based upon the sudden spike in his posts, > > it would appear that Otis is on another [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -MT Really? They sound like real doctors. By "off their lithium" do you mean they are publishing some new findings for peer review? Do they have new results from new studies substantiating some new claims? Maybe just a new book for sale? -Quick >> Off his lithium again. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >> -MT >MT> Off his lithium again. > >Otis> The usual "ad-homonin" attack yet again. From Mister "I never answer; I just insult" himself. Nice. Nice spelling, too, incidentally, from somebody who criticised Retinula for failing to capitalize to your satisfaction. >And yes, Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Colgate, Dr. Holand, Steve Leung, >and many other second-opinion (preventive) people >are "off their lithium". Again, Otis. Only YOU were insulted. You do so love that little evasion tactic, don't you. > And yes, Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Colgate, Dr. Holand, Steve Leung, > and many other second-opinion (preventive) people > are "off their lithium". Have any of them published comparisions between children who wore glasses and children who don't? Do any of them explain why the effect you describe is NOT seen when large groups of humans are tested? Yet you cling obsessively to the idea that eye doctors ruined your vision. As I said, science marches on, and you don't. -MT Once again Cletis is posting made up people to make his redundant theories appear valid. Dr Colgate should stick to his toothpaste. How do you think an astrophysicist knows anything about biophysiology Cletis? What expertise does he have in this area? If you answer NONE, you would be correct. Therefore, his espousing quacks like you and Steven Leung is irrelevant. dr grant Otis "Engineer" is a zealot who advocates his "plus lens" prevention theory without good reason. There is no scientific data to prove what he proposes. He would ask that all myopes (=nearsighted persons) go around wearing plus reading glasses in hopes that it will eventually reverse their nearsightedness. Nevermind that the blurry distance vision that myopes complain about is made worse by plus lenses! Nevermind that there is no proof for what he claims. If you are interested in Otis' approach, I have some other links that you might also be interested in: GET RICH QUICK http://www.clickvolume.net http://www.meetmark.com HARD PENILE ERECTIONS USING NATURAL HERBS http://www.herbaalex.com/panadex.htm LOOK AND FEEL YOUNGER http://www.youngeryounger.com FIND A BEAUTIFUL RUSSIAN WIFE http://www.russianladies.com For information on killfilling (filtering out the posts of a troll or spammer like Otis) see the following link: http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm For additional information on handling "trolls", refer to this link: http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm ============================== snip worthless diatribe of pure bull crap. |
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.