IOM finds vaccines safe . . . Again - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 56 Old 01-16-2013, 01:52 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I doubt this will convince anyone who wasn't convinced by the 60 other IOM reviews of vaccine safety, but the IOM has completed the most comprehensive review or the vaccine schedule to date, as well as making suggestions for future research and ways to improve communication between various stakeholders.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/36866

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx
prosciencemum likes this.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 56 Old 01-16-2013, 02:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Upon reviewing stakeholder concerns and sci- entific literature regarding the entire childhood immunization schedule, the IOM committee finds no evidence that the schedule is unsafe. The com- mittee’s review did not reveal an evidence base suggesting that the U.S. childhood immuniza- tion schedule is linked to autoimmune diseases, asthma, hypersensitivity, seizures, child develop- mental disorders, learning or developmental dis- orders, or attention deficit or disruptive disorders.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#3 of 56 Old 01-16-2013, 05:35 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,584
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)

Institute of Medicine Chokes On the Epistemological Obscenity

 

 

 

Quote:
It isn't worth spending much time and energy to take on the new Institute of Medicine report on vaccine safety concerns-- bought and paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services -- except to note that as the Feds continue trying to bottle up the truth about the autism epidemic, it keeps leaking out everywhere else. The Vaccine Court rulings this week, uncovered by the outstanding reporting of David Kirby and validated over and over by the Unanswered Questions report of EBCALA, are far more important in the long run than the dying yelps of the medical-industrial complex.
Marnica likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#4 of 56 Old 01-16-2013, 05:44 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Says the bastion of impartiality age of autism. I'll definitely let people draw their own conclusions on that one.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#5 of 56 Old 01-16-2013, 07:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#6 of 56 Old 01-16-2013, 11:46 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
It's interesting that the report is coming out now that the Vaccine Court's recent multi-million dollar rulings are getting publicity.

Chicharronita is offline  
#7 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 02:50 AM
PJJ
 
PJJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 961
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/01/16/report-confirms-safety-of-childhood-immunization-schedule/

 

"While the report found that a randomized study would be the best way to conclusively compare the health of children who have had immunizations with those who haven’t, it also recommended against performing such as a study. That is because it would raise ethical concerns."

 

Seems like only in the pharm world is it unethical to do a randomized study.  They don't want to open up that can of worms.

Obvious who is paying the bills.

 

Oh, well, this may never come to a reality of finding out what really works.
 

PJJ is offline  
#8 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 05:02 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
They've been working on it for a year, Chica.

Withholding established medical treatment from people IS unethical.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#9 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 05:57 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,584
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

They've been working on it for a year, Chica.

Withholding established medical treatment from people IS unethical.

Working on it for a year isn't the point. It's the timing of its release to try and head off any backlash from the Vaccine Court's recent decisions that is relevant. 

 

Just because vaccination is established medical treatment, doesn't make it beneficial. Blood letting was established medical treatment. They really don't want to know the differences between the health of vaxed vs unvaxed, so yet again they bring up the old unethical chestnut!

Chicharronita likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#10 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 06:33 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I don't understand what the "backlash" is supposed to be. Families were compensated for table events. What's the big deal?

From a medical ethics standpoint it does matter that its established medical procedure and that there is a substantial amount of evidence pointing to them being safe, effective, and lowering the risk of morbidity and mortality.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#11 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 06:49 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,584
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)

Dr Bob Sear's rebuttal to this IOM nonsense

 

His gripes (paraphrased for those who don't like the author):

 

1. NO NEW INFORMATION. They did nothing new to conclude that the current vaccine schedule is safe or safer than an alternative one. They just examined what was currently available and made their determination from that there is no evidence the current schedule is unsafe. Wow and it took them a whole year to do it.  wild.gif

 

2. The IOM admits that a vax vs unvax study would provide the most useful information, and is "the strongest study design type". That's why the Jackson State study is so important.

 

3. The claim that a vaxed vs unvaxed is unethical, but until this done, parents will continue to refuse vaccines over the safety issue. The horse left the barn already, and people are wising up.

 

4. He doesn't agree with what the IOM states that there is an inadequate number of of unvaxed children (1%), and feels it is more like 5% or even as high as 10%. There is a new international study that shows 10%of households had completely unvaxed children.

 

 

 

Quote:

The end result of this IOM report is that nothing has changed. Worried parents don’t have any new research or information to consider. The CDC has declared loud and clear that they won’t begin any new research on vaccine safety, especially involving a comparative unvaccinated control group. The debate over vaccine safety will continue on. 

Chicharronita and Marnica like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#12 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 06:53 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,584
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't understand what the "backlash" is supposed to be. Families were compensated for table events. What's the big deal?

From a medical ethics standpoint it does matter that its established medical procedure and that there is a substantial amount of evidence pointing to them being safe, effective, and lowering the risk of morbidity and mortality.

The deal is managing public perception on the safety of vaccines.

 

They did nothing NEW to establish the vaccine schedule is safe. Same old, same old........

 

This was a PR exercise. Nothing more.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#13 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 07:14 AM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

Well, my child suffered an obvious vaccine reaction which resulted in some of those afflictions, there have been settlement awards for other vaccine injured children with the symptoms they claim have no link to vaccines, and the most recent study of VAERS found vaccines to be of significant risk.  But of course, things of that nature don't pad the bottom line so they don't need consideration.

BeckyBird likes this.

Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
#14 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 08:05 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
The most recent misuse and abuse of vaers, maybe.

Of course they didn't do new research. That's not what IOM does.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#15 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 08:14 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,584
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The most recent misuse and abuse of vaers, maybe.

Of course they didn't do new research. That's not what IOM does.

So they are just rehashing the old stuff, which isn't all that convincing without a real vaxed vs nonvaxed study.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about: "The most recent misuse and abuse of VAERS"? 

BeckyBird likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#16 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 09:19 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
They're reviewing the body of research, which many people find valuable. This review was particularly valuable, to me, because it looked at the schedule as a whole vs individual or a few vaccines or ingredients.

I also think they made some good recommendations for further research. It's good to see the scientific community doesn't consider the book closed on vaccine research.
prosciencemum likes this.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#17 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 12:19 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,816
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)

I found it pretty reassuring too. It's nice to see a genuine independent look at the research out there and a set of recommendations on safety tests which would be good to do which aren't coming from websites which appear to have huge anti-vaccination agendas hidden under a veneer of "it's all about safety testing". That's my opinion anyway.


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  
#18 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 01:15 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
emmy526 is online now  
#19 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 01:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Oh, well, if NVIC doesn't like it . . .
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#20 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 01:35 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,011
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)

I don't think the IoM is as independent as you would imagine. They are funded by the federal government, as well as independent contributors.

 

Government Departments that fund the IoM:

• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of Defense
• Department of Health and Human Services
• EPA (in charge of allowing corporate pollution of our nation)
• USDA (the pro-Monsanto, pro-GMO sellout)
• Social Security Administration


Here's a list of some of the non-profit groups that donate money to the IoM.

 

W. K. Kellogg Foundation (tied to the Kellogg's cereal company)
• The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
• Merck Company Foundation
• The Whitehead Foundation (ties to Goldman Sachs, and John C. Whitehead was a former board member of the Federal Reserve. He also oversaw the Whitehead family's fortune of investments in the Rockefeller Group.)


 And:
 
• ConAgra, Inc.- sued for falsely labeling GMO oils as "natural"
• McDonald’s Corporation

• Monsanto Company

 

"The IoM receives millions of dollars in grant money from pharmaceutical companies, using that money to create new staff positions which claim to be "providing the nation with sound advice grounded in scientific evidence, to improve people’s health and well-being."


In addition, the IoM has financial ties to Merck, Pfizer, Astrazeneca and nearly all the top pharmaceutical companies, most of which also profit from producing and selling vaccines:

• AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P.
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
• Eli Lilly and Company
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, LLC
• Merck & Company, Inc.
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
• Pfizer, Inc.
• Sanofi Pasteur
• Sanofi-aventis
• Wyeth

So many ties. Yes, the funding must come from somewhere, I know. I'm just skeptical of the sources, and therefore, the integrity of the IoM.
Mirzam, Marnica and Jennyanydots like this.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#21 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 01:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Where would you like their funding to come from? In a perfect world?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#22 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 02:21 PM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The most recent misuse and abuse of vaers, maybe.

Of course they didn't do new research. That's not what IOM does.

 

Misuse and abuse because it didn't support a specific dogma?


Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
#23 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 02:28 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
You cannot conclude causation from vaers. Period. It's a terrible data set for drawing those kinds of conclusions.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#24 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 04:41 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,011
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Where would you like their funding to come from? In a perfect world?


I don't know. That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is that I believe the financial ties to this organization are questionable to me. I believe the funding sources might have an influence on the findings of the IoM.  I'm interested in disclosing this information to others, so they can decide if they find the IoM trustworthy or not. It doesn't matter if I can find acceptable funding sources--the reality is that the IoM is receiving funding from these sources, and the findings are always in their favor. How can we know for sure that the IoM isn't influenced by their supporters? Knowing who funds them, I'm not surprised at all that they are in favor of the current vaccine schedule.

Marnica and Jennyanydots like this.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#25 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 04:54 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I'm just curious what funding sources wouldn't be suspect.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#26 of 56 Old 01-17-2013, 08:05 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,011
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)

It doesn't matter what groups I would hypothetically choose. Let's stick to the facts, alright?  The FACT is that the IoM is and has been funded by the same groups that are directly involved with vaccines and vaccination policy.

 

Question: Knowing the sources of funding, how independent and unbiased can they really be? That's a real question, not "who does Miss BeckyBird want to fund the IoM? See the difference? One is real, and one is hypothetical and pointless.

 

By asking me about my personal choices in a hypothetical scenario, you are trying to redirect our attention off the issue of IoM's funding. Again, the issue is not about me or my decisions, but about the actual groups who have funded and are currently funding the IoM.

Jennyanydots likes this.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#27 of 56 Old 01-18-2013, 01:47 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,816
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)

Looks like you (or I) can donate money to support the IoM: http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM/Support-IOM.aspx

Sounds like a good way to remove any concerns over influence from pharmaceutical companies would be to help them raise so much money that those contributions are not needed or are negligible....

 

The full list of donors and sponsors can be found in their 2012 report: http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM/~/media/Files/About%20the%20IOM/President-Supplement-2012.pdf

 

Pgs 69-84 list individual donors in order of the amount they have given. A long list...

 

Pgs 85-88 list the organizations. 

 

You missed out several (I wonder why). 

 

For example 

 

 

Academy Consortium for Complementary & Alternative Health Care 

American Diabetes Association

American Hospital Association

American Medical Association

American Nurses Association 

Lance Armstrong Foundation  (oh dear - I guess they're about to report doping is safe?). 

 

It's a long list and I can't be bothered to pick out any more.

 

And it's irrelevent if the IoM just take the money and then conduct themselves with integrity. The two are not linked in my opinion. It's not always the case that donations would buy the desired results.

chickabiddy likes this.

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  
#28 of 56 Old 01-18-2013, 06:11 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I'm not trying to deflect, I'm honestly curious. Where is an organization like this supposed to come up with their funding?

I find their funding sources completely acceptable, so I see no need for deflection.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#29 of 56 Old 01-18-2013, 12:06 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,044
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Oh, well, if NVIC doesn't like it . . .

NVIC didn't even come close to saying that.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
#30 of 56 Old 01-18-2013, 12:09 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,044
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Looks like you (or I) can donate money to support the IoM: http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM/Support-IOM.aspx
Sounds like a good way to remove any concerns over influence from pharmaceutical companies would be to help them raise so much money that those contributions are not needed or are negligible....

The full list of donors and sponsors can be found in their 2012 report: http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM/~/media/Files/About%20the%20IOM/President-Supplement-2012.pdf

Pgs 69-84 list individual donors in order of the amount they have given. A long list...

Pgs 85-88 list the organizations. 

You missed out several (I wonder why). 

For example 





Academy Consortium for Complementary & Alternative Health Care 
American Diabetes Association



American Hospital Association
American Medical Association
American Nurses Association 
Lance Armstrong Foundation  (oh dear - I guess they're about to report doping is safe?). 

It's a long list and I can't be bothered to pick out any more.

And it's irrelevent if the IoM just take the money and then conduct themselves with integrity. The two are not linked in my opinion. It's not always the case that donations would buy the desired results.






There's no need for mockery. (ie Lance Armstrong comment).

I would start by reading the books and articles of former New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell, MD, who has extensively investigated how corporate funding affects research outcomes.
Mirzam likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
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