A Physician Takes His Flu Vaccine Under Protest - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 44 Old 12-16-2012, 03:09 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,059
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Wow. I found two gems in one day.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/11/physician-takes-flu-vaccine-protest.html

" . . . if the organization has simply been honest and stated that they were requesting employees be vaccinated because less than 90% compliance would be met by a financial penalty from our government at a time when the hospital was already under financial stress, I would have been first in line to get my vaccine . . . But rather than banking on this goodwill from the employees and staff, the institution chose to frame this as a patient care issue."

The one good that I see coming out of all of this flu shot madness is that even doctors and nurses who otherwise see the value in vaccines are questioning some of the corruption that lurks behind vaccine mandates.
BeckyBird likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#2 of 44 Old 12-29-2012, 11:41 PM
 
lanamommyphd07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everywhere, USA
Posts: 1,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

After I refused the mandatory flu shot and also suggested that it wasn't right for an employer to ask for medical information (to document the med exemption) nor was it right for an employer to ask for religious information (in which an approved clergyperson documents the specific writings that oppose vax), and pointed out that I lived in a state with a philosophical exemption......

I was fired. But wait, not fired. I was not allowed to call it that. It was a voluntary resignation. They even offered up the resident "brainwashing technician" when they realized I was not going to comply. Seems if I "listened to reason" she would be able to convert me. I found that part particularly condescending.

 

While I was able to have integrity, and thankfully could take the hit to my employment at the time, I was left feeling a bit empty. Nobody (except my patients and coworkers) even knew I stood up to the nonsense. I always felt like I should have made more of a stink about it and now I end up feeling guilty in some ways as I see the same thing happening this year in more facilities. The other docs were astonished that I didn't just do a little fraud to keep my job (get a pal to write a fake med excuse....forge my name on a vax document), but I just.couldn't. 

 

So--when folks are wondering how the vax percentage got so high in medical centers but they hear of so many docs not doing the flu shot, there you are. They are finding ways around it, but on the outside it appears as though they lined up willingly for a jab. And there are a whole lot of us who calmly submitted to a termination. But..I really really doubt any medical center would share those statistics.

lanamommyphd07 is offline  
#3 of 44 Old 12-30-2012, 04:50 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

the  flu shot mandate is getting out of control...i fear it is going to spill over into other areas of employment trades, not just hospitals.   Wait and see.  I give it five years, if that, for other workplaces to start demanding flu shots for all employees, regardless of where the employment is.  

emmy526 is online now  
#4 of 44 Old 12-30-2012, 05:56 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,044
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)

Wow, lanamommyphd07, sorry you were affected that way.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#5 of 44 Old 12-30-2012, 11:36 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
It is a strange situation in the US with the flu vaccine. If you read the article of the doctor, he has no concerns about safety, and wouldn't have minded getting vaccinated if he'd been "asked nicely", but he objects to the misrepresentation of research studies showing flu vaccines don't help too much with some groups of people, and he doesn't like being forced into vaccinating. Can't fault him with either of those things.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#6 of 44 Old 12-30-2012, 01:13 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

It is a strange situation in the US with the flu vaccine. .

It is a strange situation worldwide, that people are being required to submit to vaccination when safety is questionable at best, and both mainstream research and industry insiders (like Merck's own virologists) are showing that efficacy claims are false.
Taximom5 is offline  
#7 of 44 Old 12-30-2012, 01:17 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
That's a misrepresentation of reality as I'm sure you know. The flu vaccine is demonstrably very safe, and shown to be effective in many circumstances.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#8 of 44 Old 12-30-2012, 02:44 PM
 
lanamommyphd07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everywhere, USA
Posts: 1,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It has always bothered me that a flu shot has so many variables, and it isn't the "same" year to year (except a few exceptions), so if something were to be found ineffective, I'm guessing it would be "oh, okay, it wasn't good last year but you know we change it each year". Not enough URIs and the like are actually swabbed for me to have good feelings about the rate of diagnosis, since "flu" means so many different things in vernacular. The other issue is that since vax reactions are not necessarily seen as vax reactions but a range of other things...we don't have a set treatment protocol in place until some time later when the neuro problems are peaking. I wish those could be caught sooner, but there would have to be more acknowledgement that something could go wrong. I also found the recent claims about increases in miscarriages, etc., related to this vax troubling.

lanamommyphd07 is offline  
#9 of 44 Old 01-01-2013, 05:17 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I'm pretty sure the cochrane review found that vaccinating medical professionals improved outcomes for their patients. So the whole thing isn't just pulled from thin air.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#10 of 44 Old 01-01-2013, 06:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,059
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Nope. Cochrane found just the opposite. The link in the OP explains it.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#11 of 44 Old 01-01-2013, 07:14 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
It didn't decrease flu, but it decreased all cause mortality. Which is why I said improved outcomes.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#12 of 44 Old 01-01-2013, 07:16 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I do think its funny that that guy complains about someone not citing any research papers, and then provides nothing to document several of his own claims, though.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#13 of 44 Old 01-01-2013, 07:23 PM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm pretty sure the cochrane review found that vaccinating medical professionals improved outcomes for their patients. So the whole thing isn't just pulled from thin air.
Will you please link to or quote this language, because I'm not finding it...

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
#14 of 44 Old 01-01-2013, 07:27 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
It's in the cochrane review on pub med. it's not in the link in the op. he cuts that part off when he cites their conclusions.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#15 of 44 Old 01-01-2013, 07:30 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16631547?dopt=Abstract

Vaccinating health-care workers did not appear efficacious against influenza (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46-1.63). There was no significant effect of vaccination on lower respiratory tract infections: (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41-1.20). Deaths from pneumonia were significantly reduced (VE 39%, 95% CI 2-62%), as were deaths from all causes (VE 40%, 95% CI 27-50%). These findings must be interpreted in the light of possible selection, performance, attrition, and detection biases.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16856082?dopt=Abstract

We included two cluster randomised controlled trials (C-RCT) and one cohort study. Staff vaccination appears to have significant effect against ILI (absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) 86%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 40% to 97%) only when patients are vaccinated too; if patients are not vaccinated, staff immunisation shows no effect (based on one C-RCT). Based on a small number of observations from two C-RCTs, the vaccines have no efficacy against influenza (odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.68) or lower respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.20) but were effective against deaths from pneumonia (VE 39%, 95% CI 2% to 62%) and deaths from all causes (VE 40%, 95% CI 27% to 50%). All findings must be interpreted with caution given the presence of selection bias.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#16 of 44 Old 01-01-2013, 07:31 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm pretty sure the cochrane review found that vaccinating medical professionals improved outcomes for their patients. So the whole thing isn't just pulled from thin air.

 

Really?  Exactly how sure are you?



Do you remember this thread?  http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1369234/cochrane-review-and-flu-vaccines

The one you started?

 

The one where we kept giving you quotes from the Cochrane Review and its lead author, Dr. Tom Jefferson?

 

Quotes like this one:

"Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost."

 

And this one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

I'll repeat this, since Rrrrachel apparently did not see it.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Well, according to the lead researcher for the review:

 

"In other words, we report that no effect of the influenza vaccines was detectable on influenza and its complications such as death.


I also like his final statement in that letter:  "It is not my place to judge the policies currently underway in British Columbia, but coercion and forcing public ridicule on human beings (for example by forcing them to wear distinctive badges or clothing) is usually the practice of tyrants."


 

 http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Cochrane+review+vaccine+definitive+health+officer+suggests/7543272/story.html#ixzz2Dx2sYzYQ

 

Did you get that?  No effect of the influenza vaccines was detectable on influenza.

 

In case you missed it, he was very clear:

 

 

"In his Nov. 2 letter to The Vancouver Sun, Dr. Perry Kendall, the provincial health officer for British Columbia, misquotes our work suggesting that our Cochrane review in healthcare workers “reports that vaccinating health care workers protects patients from influenza, pneumonia (a complication of influenza), doctor’s visits, hospitalizations, and even death”.

Our 2010 review concludes no such thing. It is worth reporting a verbatim extract from our conclusions to show just how things can be distorted:


 "No effect was shown for specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia and death from pneumonia."

Taximom5 is offline  
#17 of 44 Old 01-01-2013, 07:33 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure now, since I found it and quoted the abstract in the immediately previous post to yours.

You quoted dr Jefferson a lot, as a recall, but not so much the actual cochrane review.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#18 of 44 Old 01-02-2013, 05:50 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Yeah, I'm pretty sure now, since I found it and quoted the abstract in the immediately previous post to yours.
You quoted dr Jefferson a lot, as a recall, but not so much the actual cochrane review.

The second red-highlighted quote of his in my above post is Jefferson quoting the actual cochrane review.

 

It's worth repeating:

 

Dr. Jefferson's exact words:

"Our 2010 review concludes no such thing. It is worth reporting a verbatim extract from our conclusions to show just how things can be distorted:


 "No effect was shown for specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia and death from pneumonia."

 

I guess if you don't want to believe the lead researcher's own words, that no effect from the flu vaccine was shown on laboratory-proven influenza, my question for you is, why don't you want to believe the lead researcher?

Taximom5 is offline  
#19 of 44 Old 01-02-2013, 06:48 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
That "lab tested influenza" - which might exclude some actual influenza if not tested....?

Don't forget to read this bit from Rrrrrachels post which seems like vaccine is helping with some things:

"Deaths from pneumonia were significantly reduced (VE 39%, 95% CI 2-62%), as were deaths from all causes (VE 40%, 95% CI 27-50%)."

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#20 of 44 Old 01-02-2013, 06:55 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Taxi I already acknowledged that. I even quoted the same words. It's also says that it DID reduce all cause mortality. I'm just pointing out that there is some basis for requiring flu shots.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#21 of 44 Old 01-02-2013, 08:38 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

That "lab tested influenza" - which might exclude some actual influenza if not tested....?
Don't forget to read this bit from Rrrrrachels post which seems like vaccine is helping with some things:
"Deaths from pneumonia were significantly reduced (VE 39%, 95% CI 2-62%), as were deaths from all causes (VE 40%, 95% CI 27-50%)."

The Cochrane Review states quite strongly that the studies (including the ones you quote) are low-quality.

Again, quoting the lead researcher (whom you and Rachael pointedly ignore):

"In other words, we report that no effect of the influenza vaccines was detectable on influenza and its complications such as death. We detected an effect on non-influenza specific outcomes such as death for all causes. This we found to be implausible given that in the elderly and frail death occurs for a variety of causes completely unrelated to influenza. Dr. Kendall forgot to mention our warning that all studies in the review were of low quality (which is the most likely explanation for the findings on death from all causes).

www.vancouversun.com/health/Cochrane+review+vaccine+definitive+health+officer+suggests/7543272/story.html#ixzz2GpuASIjk

Why on earth would anyone want to spend hours and hours on the Internet, passionately defending the flu shot, even though the gold standard of mainstream medical review says that there was no detectable effect on flu, hospitalization from influenza, pneumonia from influenza, or death from influenza? Why would anyone feel its so important to trumpet the findings of industry-designed, low-quality studies over those of an independent, highly respected reviewer? Why would anyone claiming to be "pro-science" ignore the strongest science related to the flu shot?

I am mystified.
Mirzam, Marnica, BeckyBird and 1 others like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#22 of 44 Old 01-02-2013, 08:44 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I'm not going to bicker with you taxi. People can read the results for themselves.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#23 of 44 Old 01-02-2013, 11:18 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm not going to bicker with you taxi. People can read the results for themselves.

Thank heavens for that!  thumb.gif

Taximom5 is offline  
#24 of 44 Old 01-02-2013, 01:24 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post
were effective against deaths from pneumonia (VE 39%, 95% CI 2% to 62%) and deaths from all causes (VE 40%, 95% CI 27% to 50%)

 

is convincing to me.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#25 of 44 Old 01-02-2013, 06:47 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

 

is convincing to me.

Why is that convincing to you when the Cochrane Review asserts that those studies are low-quality, and that those conclusions are not plausible?

Taximom5 is offline  
#26 of 44 Old 01-02-2013, 07:09 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Taxi, to reiterate, again, my only point in bringing it up is that these recommendations aren't based on nothing.

Also,once again, there is a difference between what the lead researcher has said and what the Cochran review actually said. The Cochran review is highly regarded because of the methodology and procedures it goes through in writing its reviews. Remarks the lead researcher makes in a letter to the editor are not held to the same standard.

Why can't you just let this go? The links are there for people to read. Why do you get so worked up just because people come to different conclusions than you? It's like it's a personal affront or something.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#27 of 44 Old 01-02-2013, 07:26 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Taxi, to reiterate, again, my only point in bringing it up is that these recommendations aren't based on nothing.
Also,once again, there is a difference between what the lead researcher has said and what the Cochran review actually said. The Cochran review is highly regarded because of the methodology and procedures it goes through in writing its reviews. Remarks the lead researcher makes in a letter to the editor are not held to the same standard.
Why can't you just let this go? The links are there for people to read. Why do you get so worked up just because people come to different conclusions than you? It's like it's a personal affront or something.

 

 

 

My question was in reply to Chickabiddy, not to you, Rrrrachel.  

Taximom5 is offline  
#28 of 44 Old 01-03-2013, 04:30 AM
 
WildKingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If you only want to talk to one person, you should probably use a PM. This is a forum. Oh, wait, you were talking to Rachel, not me.

Or are all three screen names mine?????

The world will never know....mwah ha ha!!!!
WildKingdom is offline  
#29 of 44 Old 01-03-2013, 07:23 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:  Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

 

Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post



[This study] is convincing to me.


Why is that convincing to you when the Cochrane Review asserts that those studies are low-quality, and that those conclusions are not plausible?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

If you only want to talk to one person, you should probably use a PM. This is a forum. Oh, wait, you were talking to Rachel, not me.
Or are all three screen names mine?????
The world will never know....mwah ha ha!!!!

 

I think it was pretty clear, both whom I was quoting, and whom I was addressing.


But if you think it's appropriate to make fun of me, there's not much I can do about it, except marvel at your maturity, sensitivity, and compassion.   shrug.gif

Taximom5 is offline  
#30 of 44 Old 01-03-2013, 08:08 AM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,737
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)

If you agree with this statement, 

Quote:
Intelligent, informative, and civil debate should be the shining light of this forum.

 

Please demonstrate that by posting in a way that directs the dialog towards what you wish this forum to be. Ignore rude, baiting comments.

 

A reminder of part of UA for discussion and debate: 

Quote:
Do not stoop to accusation, condescending comments and veiled insults against an individual's character or intentions in posting here, as if that will somehow discredit the person or information.

 

I also want to thank those of you who chose to use the flag feature without escalating the issue. This makes moderating a lot quicker and easier. Thanks! 


Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off