Anyone read this page on the CHOP site? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 182Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 62 Old 07-01-2014, 08:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Anyone read this page on the CHOP site?

I saw a discussion of this on a Facebook page.

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-.../aluminum.html

The section on aluminum during pregnancy is interesting. I'll quote just a tidbit and if anyone is interested they can go and read the rest.
Quote:
Aluminum quantities fluctuate naturally during normal cellular activity. It is found in all tissues and is also believed to play an important role in the development of a healthy fetus. This is supported by several findings:

During healthy pregnancies the amount of aluminum in a woman's blood increases.
There are a few references at the bottom and as far as I can work out, the only two that could possibly support this claim are from 1986 and 1974.
Deborah is online now  
#2 of 62 Old 07-01-2014, 08:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
The Facebook page where I found this link has some further links including this one http://ispub.com/IJTO/3/1/10966

Which strongly recommends against exposure to aluminum during pregnancy and has a lot of references more recent that the 70s or 80s.

So, my question has two parts.

1) Why is CHOP referencing old science about aluminum and pregnancy?
2) Why is CHOP NOT referencing the current science about aluminum and pregnancy?
Deborah is online now  
#3 of 62 Old 07-01-2014, 08:29 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
1. Because CHOP wants to promote the use of vaccination during pregnancy.
2. Because there is NO current science that states that aluminium is safe during pregnancy for mother or baby.
That is just dangerous and he needs to be called on it.
Mirzam, Deborah, serenbat and 6 others like this.
applejuice is offline  
#4 of 62 Old 07-02-2014, 09:26 AM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,567
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
1. Because CHOP wants to promote the use of vaccination during pregnancy.
2. Because there is NO current science that states that aluminium is safe during pregnancy for mother or baby.
That is just dangerous and he needs to be called on it.
I mean why show updated studies, who actually reads the dates on them anyways? And science never changes....
sassyfirechick is offline  
#5 of 62 Old 07-02-2014, 11:18 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Only critical thinkers check the dates on studies. Dates of studies matter if they support the position you are arguing, in other words, old is okay if it makes a vaccine ingredient look essential and safe, bad if it makes a vaccine look dangerous.

And this can all be flipped if you are on the other side. Feel free.

Last edited by Deborah; 07-04-2014 at 11:24 AM.
Deborah is online now  
#6 of 62 Old 07-02-2014, 04:31 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
(silly anti-vaxer, quoting an OLD study)
Yes, that is me. I found a study that showed that doctors do not wash their hands nor get regular vaccines from 1980 and I was mocked royally --- as if anything has changed in the past 34 yrs in modern medicine, which of course, is the point.
applejuice is offline  
#7 of 62 Old 07-03-2014, 11:58 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,776
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
It is not ok to mock pro vax mothers here. Can I respectfully request an edit.
prosciencemum is online now  
#8 of 62 Old 07-04-2014, 11:25 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
It is not ok to mock pro vax mothers here. Can I respectfully request an edit.
All fixed.

Do you think aluminum is needed during pregnancy?
applejuice likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#9 of 62 Old 07-04-2014, 10:53 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,776
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Needed? No. But I also understand the amounts in vaccines are tiny.
prosciencemum is online now  
#10 of 62 Old 07-05-2014, 05:45 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Needed? No. But I also understand the amounts in vaccines are tiny.
Don't those "tiny" amounts still exceed recommendations for infants, per pound of body weight? Don't those "tiny" amounts also cross the placenta and the blood-brain barrier? Isn't there research which links those very "tiny" amounts with autoimmune issues? Isn't there research linking the "tiny" amount of aluminum in IV solutions with neurological impairment in preterm infants?

Would you like to tell us why it is safe to give aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines to pre-term infants who may already have a toxic load of aluminum from IV solutions? Might those infants also have a toxic load of mercury from vaccines their mothers received while pregnant--or from the IV that is standard use during labor and delivery?
Taximom5 is offline  
#11 of 62 Old 07-05-2014, 07:49 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
With lead, it turned out that "tiny" was not equal to safe.

Until the research on aluminum exposure has actually been done, I think I'd rather that babies and fetuses were spared the doses.
Deborah is online now  
#12 of 62 Old 07-05-2014, 11:26 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,776
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
My point is it's tiny compared to other environmental exposure. They're already getting the dose whether they vaccinate it not.

The placenta is also amazing at filtering toxins. We should trust women's bodies more in how wonderful they are at protecting foetuses I think.
teacozy likes this.
prosciencemum is online now  
#13 of 62 Old 07-05-2014, 02:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
You can trust.

I think I'll keep reading the science.
applejuice likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#14 of 62 Old 07-05-2014, 03:09 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
My point is it's tiny compared to other environmental exposure. They're already getting the dose whether they vaccinate it not.

The placenta is also amazing at filtering toxins. We should trust women's bodies more in how wonderful they are at protecting foetuses I think.
This statement is a bit atypical from what we usually see.

Usually the naturally inclined are saying be careful with fetuses and the not so naturally inclined are more likely to say to not worry….

In any event…I disagree with the bolded. There are so many things that can harm a fetus - smoke, alcohal, many prescription drugs, lead, mercury.

I tend to think that there is no excuse for potentially harmful ingredients in vaccines. I have faith they can make a better vaccine.

"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
beckybird and sassyfirechick like this.

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  
#15 of 62 Old 07-05-2014, 03:51 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
This statement is a bit atypical from what we usually see.

Usually the naturally inclined are saying be careful with fetuses and the not so naturally inclined are more likely to say to not worry….

In any event…I disagree with the bolded. There are so many things that can harm a fetus - smoke, alcohal, many prescription drugs, lead, mercury.
And I think it's important to not that one single cigarette is not going to be harmful to fetus, nor is one glass of wine. Indeed, there's some evidence that even a single glass of wine a day is not going to cause any harm.

Of course smoking cigarettes and drinking wine don't have a benefit for the fetus like the flu and pertussis vaccine given to pregnant women do.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#16 of 62 Old 07-05-2014, 04:03 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
The placenta is also amazing at filtering toxins. We should trust women's bodies more in how wonderful they are at protecting foetuses I think.
Oh, my!

The medical texts from before 1960 referred to the placenta as a "bloody sieve", which protected the fetus from all danger. That kind of magical thinking lead to the thalidomide tragedy, the DES disaster, the bendectin blow, and the Paxil paroxysm. The paradox is that doctors knew that Rh- mothers' babies could be sensitized from a mixing of the blood types through the placenta, yet somehow this does not happen when there are toxins in the mother's system.
applejuice is offline  
#17 of 62 Old 07-05-2014, 04:19 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 530
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
And I think it's important to not that one single cigarette is not going to be harmful to fetus...
And you know this how? Source please.
applejuice likes this.
samaxtics is online now  
#18 of 62 Old 07-05-2014, 06:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
It took a very long time and a huge struggle to work out the science on the dangers of lead. While we are waiting for the battle over aluminum to sort itself out, it seems quite sensible to avoid exposing our unborn babies and our infants to tiny amounts. True, the environment is already badly contaminated with aluminum. This isn't a good argument for injecting more during pregnancy. The "safe" levels of lead turned out to be utterly and completely unsafe.
Deborah is online now  
#19 of 62 Old 07-05-2014, 06:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Anyone up for a thread discussing one of the scientific studies that demonstrate the safety and efficacy of either the flu vaccine or the pertussis vaccine during pregnancy? I would love to have a look at the science.
applejuice and beckybird like this.
Deborah is online now  
#20 of 62 Old 07-05-2014, 07:48 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
And you know this how? Source please.
I'll rephrase. Smoking one cigarette over the course of 9 months is very very very unlikely to cause any problems.

A better analogy is smoking 1/1000th of a puff of one cigarette or 1/1000th of a drop of wine during pregnancy. Again, harmful in large quantities, not going to do any harm in teeny tiny quantities.

Since non vaxxers like to use this argument so much.... let's not forget that during the 40s and 50s women smoked and drank throughout their pregnancies all the time and most babies turned out just fine. In fact, my grandmother doesn't know a single person whose baby had any problems from smoking or drinking during their pregnancies. Yes, we actually talked about it after she watched Mad Men and noticed how heavily Betty Draper smoked and drank throughout her pregnancy on the show.


See why these anecdotes aren't useful?

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#21 of 62 Old 07-05-2014, 08:26 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
My point is it's tiny compared to other environmental exposure. They're already getting the dose whether they vaccinate it not.

The placenta is also amazing at filtering toxins. We should trust women's bodies more in how wonderful they are at protecting foetuses I think.
I'm really stunned to see this kind of misunderstanding expressed by a scientist.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22717874
"The heavy metals mercury, lead, and cadmium are toxicants, which are well-known to cross the placenta and to accumulate in fetal tissues. Prenatal exposure to mercury and lead poses a health threat particularly to the developing brain."

Looks like the placenta is not amazing at filtering heavy metal toxins.

How about aluminum? Well, we certainly know that aluminum crosses the placenta in rats: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8856741
Neurotoxicity induced by prenatal aluminum exposure in rats.

http://ispub.com/IJTO/3/1/10966
Perinatal Toxicity of Aluminum

"...extensive researches on every aspect of aluminum toxicity for the last 35 years proved that the metal should not be taken as safe. In spite of persistent arguments, it is well accepted that aluminum is a potent neurotoxicant. The risk is more at the perinatal age, because of more vulnerability of neuronal tissues. Thus, in this review, the available reports on perinatal aluminum toxicity are accumulated and an imperative aspect of aluminum toxicity is discussed as — why aluminum should be regarded as significant toxicant at perinatal age group, how perinates are exposed to aluminum, distribution of aluminum between the pregnant or lactating mother and prenatal or postnatal age groups, impairment of overall growth or development, alteration in other important trace elements and finally the impact on the neurobehavioral development with special emphasis."

And your response is "The placenta is also amazing at filtering toxins. We should trust women's bodies more in how wonderful they are at protecting foetuses I think." Really???
Taximom5 is offline  
#22 of 62 Old 07-06-2014, 06:18 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I'll rephrase. Smoking one cigarette over the course of 9 months is very very very unlikely to cause any problems.
Let's back up.

What statrted this discussion is aluminum.

It isn't a tiny amount of aluminum given over 9 months

Aluminum is given in vaccines on vaccination day. It is not spread out over 9 months, or 6 months or whatever. This is why all those memes about aluminum compared to breastmilk over 6 months are useless (and potentially intellectually misleading )- the issues isn't how much over time, but how much in a single serving.

"The level of Aluminum in pediatric vaccines is well over the threshold for toxicity
A 2004 statement by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), a group that monitors oral and injectable nutritional products for safety and side effects, states the daily limit of aluminum is 5 mcg per kilogram of body weight (Charney et al. 2004).6
An average 6 week old weighs 4.5kg, measures 55cm in length, and has just 400mL of blood. For an infant of this size, the daily allowable limit of injectable aluminum is 22.5mcg. A 6 week old infant receiving the Infanrix and Synflorix vaccinations as per NZ schedule, will receive 1320mcg of aluminum in one sitting, grossly exceeding the daily allowable limit of 22.5mcg aluminum for a 6 week old, 59 times over."

http://naturalmamanz.blogspot.ca/201...l#.U7lMLW8Re2x

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  
#23 of 62 Old 07-06-2014, 08:47 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,776
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
I'd like to see someone make a cigarette last for 9 months! (Well actually I wouldn't - I hate being near smokers). Obviously in teas example the cigarette is smoked on one day.

So where's the difference.

And l say again - all pregnant women are exposed to much much more aluminium than the amount in one vaccine. Why is the vaccine (the drop in the ocean) worrying if the ocean is not?
prosciencemum is online now  
#24 of 62 Old 07-06-2014, 09:18 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
If something is harmful, why add to the burden?

Unless the evidence for the benefits of vaccinating during pregnancy are absolutely overwhelmingly supported by science of excellent quality, why take even a small risk?

And if the science is that good, someone should be able to provide links to that science and be willing to discuss it.
Deborah is online now  
#25 of 62 Old 07-06-2014, 09:23 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Quote:
Aluminum quantities fluctuate naturally during normal cellular activity. It is found in all tissues and is also believed to play an important role in the development of a healthy fetus. This is supported by several findings:

During healthy pregnancies the amount of aluminum in a woman's blood increases.
This is the original quote with which I started the thread. Here is the link again. http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-.../aluminum.html

I'd like to point out that we have moved from CHOP's claim that it plays an "important role in the development of a healthy fetus" to multiple scientific sources showing that aluminum is dangerous for the fetus.
applejuice likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#26 of 62 Old 07-06-2014, 09:24 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 530
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I'll rephrase. Smoking one cigarette over the course of 9 months is very very very unlikely to cause any problems.

A better analogy is smoking 1/1000th of a puff of one cigarette or 1/1000th of a drop of wine during pregnancy. Again, harmful in large quantities, not going to do any harm in teeny tiny quantities.

Since non vaxxers like to use this argument so much.... let's not forget that during the 40s and 50s women smoked and drank throughout their pregnancies all the time and most babies turned out just fine. In fact, my grandmother doesn't know a single person whose baby had any problems from smoking or drinking during their pregnancies. Yes, we actually talked about it after she watched Mad Men and noticed how heavily Betty Draper smoked and drank throughout her pregnancy on the show.


See why these anecdotes aren't useful?
Again Teacozy, just because the baby appears to be fine, doesn't mean it has optimal health. Nor can you possibly know how it affected the overall lifetime health of that person. How do you know that maternal smoking during pregnancy (MSDP) didn't lower the IQ? There are studies that show that MSDP increases the child's risk of asthma in childhood. How about respiratory issues or heart issues later in life? Smoking depletes vitamin C and D and affects the smoker's teeth. How about dental issues for that fetus down the road?

I haven't seen Mad Men. Betty Draper is a fictional character, is she not? In that case, no, fictional characters would not be useful.

But I tell you what. Should I ever need to take my child to the doctor or hospital, I'm not going to answer any questions. And when they ask why I won't answer their questions, I'm going to tell them all I could say would be anecdotal and not useful.

You do know that during clinical trials for vaccines parents of participants are asked to fill out cards describing any symptoms? Does it magically change from anecdotal evidence to scientific evidence in the hands of the pharmaceutical companies?
samaxtics is online now  
#27 of 62 Old 07-06-2014, 09:26 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Is CHOP's claim that aluminum exposure during pregnancy is not only okay but good, valid? Based on current science?
applejuice likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#28 of 62 Old 07-06-2014, 10:30 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

And l say again - all pregnant women are exposed to much much more aluminium than the amount in one vaccine. Why is the vaccine (the drop in the ocean) worrying if the ocean is not?
If the daily safe limit is xyz and fetuses or infants are exposed to a level above it, it could potentially be unsafe. Even if the daily safe limit is unknown, common sense would dictate less is better.

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...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-06-2014 at 10:45 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#29 of 62 Old 07-06-2014, 12:14 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Especially if the daily safe limit is unknown.
beckybird likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#30 of 62 Old 07-06-2014, 12:27 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,776
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Does "a drop in the ocean" have a different meaning in the us?
prosciencemum 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