Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   Vaccinations (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/)
-   -   Vaccines, $$$ & "fight the virus NATURALLY"! (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/1438466-vaccines-fight-virus-naturally.html)

serenbat 08-03-2014 01:21 PM

Vaccines, $$$ & "fight the virus NATURALLY"!
 
:jaw Naturally???

I also heard this same line today on NPR -

At Emory the staff will try to ease the patient’s symptoms and provide better monitoring of fluids and vital signs. Since there is no specific treatment for Ebola, all that can be done is to make them as comfortable as possible and let the body fight the virus naturally.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/08/ebola-...ce-for-a-cure/

I have been lead to believe by the PRO vaccine side the body is to take in vaccines not to do it "naturally"? What gives?
--------------------------

but a vaccine?? oh, there is NO $ MoNeY $


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebo...tments-n167871

Even though Ebola is burning out of control in West Africa, it’s not a huge potential market for a large pharmaceutical company to sink its teeth — and its assets — into developing.

I thought ALL vaccines were out of the goodness of the hearts of BIG Pharma? That is what we are being told by the PRO side - there is money to be made? I'm shocked!

“There is no market in it.”

--------------------------

........a plane ride away.......and brought to the US with the "blessing" of the CDC! How about that?

Plane ride right to the US - how does the PRO side justify these statements?

MeepyCat 08-03-2014 01:38 PM

Are you suggesting that U.S. citizens who become ill should be denied the right to return to their home country for care? Because that's what it sounds like you're suggesting.

I justify bringing these people back to the U.S. by reflecting that (a) ebola is not very contagious and it is relatively easy to take effective precautions against in high-resources situations where people trust doctors, (b) that bringing a citizen back to his or her home country for care is a humanitarian act, and (c) that health care volunteers working abroad typically have contracts that provide for their return home for health care in the event that they are ill or injured.

Providing supportive care while a disease runs its course is what we do for a lot of illnesses, including cholera and the common cold.

If there were an effective treatment for ebola, the humane thing to do would be to distribute it widely, but there isn't. Aside from money, it's hard to run drug trials on a disease that is as rare as ebola - West Africa is currently seeing an unusually large outbreak, and the last time I saw a number, it still involved less than 1500 people. Once this outbreak is under control, it will hopefully be a long time until the next one. Researchers don't always figure out the right treatment on the first try and ebola is a fleeting target.

serenbat 08-03-2014 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat (Post 17885402)
Are you suggesting that U.S. citizens who become ill should be denied the right to return to their home country for care? Because that's what it sounds like you're suggesting. WOW! did you jump to the wrong conclusion! It's been the PRO vaccine mantra for sometime now about "a plane ride away", well they got it - plain & simple. I said NOTHING about suggesting or denying care, not one bit!

I justify bringing these people back to the U.S. by reflecting that (a) ebola is not very contagious and it is relatively easy to take effective precautions against in high-resources situations where people trust doctors, (b) that bringing a citizen back to his or her home country for care is a humanitarian act, and (c) that health care volunteers working abroad typically have contracts that provide for their return home for health care in the event that they are ill or injured.

Providing supportive care while a disease runs its course is what we do for a lot of illnesses, including cholera and the common cold. There happens to be a vaccine for cholera.

If there were an effective treatment for ebola, the humane thing to do would be to distribute it widely, but there isn't. Aside from money, it's hard to run drug trials on a disease that is as rare as ebola - West Africa is currently seeing an unusually large outbreak, and the last time I saw a number, it still involved less than 1500 people. Once this outbreak is under control, it will hopefully be a long time until the next one. Researchers don't always figure out the right treatment on the first try and ebola is a fleeting target.

YES, it really is about MONEY isn't it?!

MeepyCat 08-03-2014 02:18 PM

Serenbat, I can't honestly tell reading your post what points you intend to be making. You claim to be shocked (at least that's how I interpret the jaw drop smiley), but I can't quite tell what you would find preferable to the things that shock you.

So I'm going with these points:
1. Citizens have a right to return to their home countries.
2. Bringing these two sick people into the US (on specially equipped private jets, which delivered them to specially equipped ambulances, which took them stright to an isolation unit) doesn't result in any risk of disease transmission to people who don't have direct contact with the patients.
3. Providing symptomatic support while waiting for the body to clear an infection is a very common treatment for a variety of diseases. (Including some for which there are vaccines. )
4. There are practical as well as economic reasons why we don't have a vaccine or specific treatment for ebola. I think it's inaccurate (and insulting to researchers) to claim that these challenges are just about money.

applejuice 08-03-2014 02:19 PM

We do not know how contagious ebola is, which is why hazmat suits are worn when working in the clinics with Ebola patients.

There is no established, standardized treatment for ebola. It is hit or miss at this point in time.

While this may be considered the humanitarian approach to bring these persons home to the U.S., how humanitarian is it if the virus is accidentally released, and 330,000,000+ Americans are at risk? With whom do these people have this contract? Who do we sue if an American gets Ebola on our soil?

How can we trust the CDC? Did they not recently find samples of smallpox and anthrax in a shed somewhere that had been forgotten? http://my.chicagotribune.com/#sectio.../p2p-80747961/
http://medcitynews.com/2014/07/thoug...-storage-room/

Why does the CDC have a US patent (patent No. CA2741523A1) on the Ebola virus, 2010? http://www.google.com/patents/CA2741523A1?cl=en

serenbat 08-03-2014 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat (Post 17885522)
Serenbat, I can't honestly tell reading your post what points you intend to be making. You claim to be shocked (at least that's how I interpret the jaw drop smiley), but I can't quite tell what you would find preferable to the things that shock you.

So I'm going with these points:
1. Citizens have a right to return to their home countries.
2. Bringing these two sick people into the US (on specially equipped private jets, which delivered them to specilly equipped mbulnces, which took them stright to an isolation unit) doesn't result in any risk of disease transmission to people who don't have direct contact with the patients.
3. Providing symptomatic support while waiting for the body to clear an infection is a very common treatment for a variety of diseases. (Including some for which there are vaccines. )
4. There are practical as well as economic reasons why we don't have a vaccine or specific treatment for ebola. I think it's inaccurate (and insulting to researchers) to claim that these challenges are just about money.

Apparently the irony of the PRO vaccine propaganda message has been lost on you.

Naturally is NOT the message BIG Pharma has sent, it's the complete and utter opposite. We DO NOT treat diseases "naturally" we have vaccines so we do not have to treat disease.

We are told over and over and OVER again by the PRO vaccine side that vaccines DO NOT MAKE MONEY - clearly there is money involved - again, I see quite the SHOCKING irony to that!

a plane ride away.............I'm not the one that has been freaking out over disease coming here via a plane ride, have you read much on this section? The "assumption" by the PRO vaccine side is simply that "a plane ride away" - well they now have it. It's been echoed here numerous times by those who support vaccines, not the non-vaccine side.

We can "believe" or we can look at statics and see that most who are getting infected with Ebola are health care workers, one can make up their own mind if there is really a risk or not.

serenbat 08-03-2014 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat (Post 17885522)
4. There are practical as well as economic reasons why we don't have a vaccine or specific treatment for ebola. I think it's inaccurate (and insulting to researchers) to claim that these challenges are just about money.

You can read on several news outlets the exact same money arguments being made.

Are you able to support your claim money has nothing to do with this? I can't find stories that really support what you are saying, only the opposite. I take it you take issue with what is being repotted by the news on the money connection?

serenbat 08-03-2014 02:41 PM

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/31/5952665...nt-it-happened

Pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to pour research and development dollars into curing a disease that surfaces sporadically in low-income, African countries. They aren't likely to see a large pay-off at the end — and could stand to lose money. Sounds like their bottom line means more not their :stillheart IMO

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ebola-vacci...esting-1458951

Most big pharmaceuticals do not like to sink assets into developing any drug with low potential. shareholders, profit!!

kathymuggle 08-03-2014 02:43 PM

I saw an article on the ebola vaccine and how manufacturers were hesitant to roll it out, in case it wasn't 100%. They did not want a vaccine "scare" on their hands.

The article also stated this would never fly in a wealthy country and the vaccine would be "fast -tracked".

http://www.citynews.ca/2014/07/09/eb...drugs-experts/

Point:
"But a number of experts — including the scientist who led the work on a Canadian-made Ebola vaccine — say deploying untested tools in the current West African outbreak could be disastrous.

They say taking such a risky gamble could further erode local trust in the response teams, undermine their efforts and even endanger them. And if anyone were to have a bad reaction to one of the experimental therapies, it could jeopardize years of expensive and painstaking work spent developing tools with which to fight Ebola and its cousin, the Marburg virus."

counterpoint:

"Dr. Jeremy Farrar, an infectious diseases expert, has questioned why the therapies that are furthest along in the developmental pipeline aren’t being used. He suggests if this outbreak were occurring in the developed world, there would be no debate.

"Imagine if you take a region of Canada, America, Europe and you had 450 people dying of a viral hemorrhagic fever. It would just be unacceptable — and it’s unacceptable in West Africa,” Farrar says.

He notes the Canadian-made Ebola vaccine — a project Feldmann led a decade ago when he worked at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg — was released under emergency use provisions in 2009 when a German researcher pricked herself with a needle containing Ebola virus. She survived, but it was never clear if it was because of the vaccine or because she was not infected.

“We moved heaven and earth to help a German lab technician. Why is it different because this is West Africa?” Farrar asks."

MeepyCat 08-03-2014 02:51 PM

I'm pretty familiar with the pro-vaccine side: my mom is a physician with board certifications in both pediatrics and infectious disease. She's spent most of her career in clinical research. We talk about her work all the time. Maybe I'm actually missing the propaganda.

We love it when preventive tactics like vaccines work - prevention is far better and easier and less unpleasant than getting ill and getting treatment, but prevention doesn't always work. Vaccines don't always work. When they don't work, sometimes symptomatic support and hope are all we've got. In my opinion, this is a really solid argument for at least attempting prevention - if ever I have to hope that symptomatic support gets me through, I don't want to also be kicking myself for passing up a shot that would have reduced my odds of being in that situation by 50-99%.

The average person in the US should be no more worried about getting ebola that they are about getting bubonic plague from the few rodents that die of plague in the Southwest every year. Ebola is spread by fluid contact with people who are symptomatically ill. In a situation where effective isolation is possible and disposable PPE garments are readily available, the risk of transmission is very low.

The fact that VPDs are only a plane ride away is not an argument for closing the borders, but as it happens, with two ebola cases in Atlanta, Ebola is still far more than a plane ride away for most Americans. Thete's a plane ride, intensive training in medical skills and isolation unit best practices, and a demanding job application process currently between me and the opportunity to expose myself to ebola.

Deborah 08-03-2014 02:51 PM

It sounds like there is deep distrust of the health care providers in Africa.

serenbat 08-03-2014 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle (Post 17885618)
I saw an article on the ebola vaccine and how manufacturers were hesitant to roll it out, in case it wasn't 100%. They did not want a vaccine "scare" on their hands.

The article also stated this would never fly in a wealthy country and the vaccine would be "fast -tracked".

http://www.citynews.ca/2014/07/09/eb...drugs-experts/

Point:
"But a number of experts — including the scientist who led the work on a Canadian-made Ebola vaccine — say deploying untested tools in the current West African outbreak could be disastrous.

They say taking such a risky gamble could further erode local trust in the response teams, undermine their efforts and even endanger them. And if anyone were to have a bad reaction to one of the experimental therapies, it could jeopardize years of expensive and painstaking work spent developing tools with which to fight Ebola and its cousin, the Marburg virus."

counterpoint:

"Dr. Jeremy Farrar, an infectious diseases expert, has questioned why the therapies that are furthest along in the developmental pipeline aren’t being used. He suggests if this outbreak were occurring in the developed world, there would be no debate.

"Imagine if you take a region of Canada, America, Europe and you had 450 people dying of a viral hemorrhagic fever. It would just be unacceptable — and it’s unacceptable in West Africa,” Farrar says.

He notes the Canadian-made Ebola vaccine — a project Feldmann led a decade ago when he worked at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg — was released under emergency use provisions in 2009 when a German researcher pricked herself with a needle containing Ebola virus. She survived, but it was never clear if it was because of the vaccine or because she was not infected.

“We moved heaven and earth to help a German lab technician. Why is it different because this is West Africa?” Farrar asks."


IMO - I think A LOT depends on where you live and WHO you are regarding vaccines!

serenbat 08-03-2014 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deborah (Post 17885650)
It sounds like there is deep distrust of the health care providers in Africa.

I do feel "management" has been dismal and that adds to things.
If we really are talking about vaccines too - one only needs to look at other places having issues with "health care providers" to understand distrust! Not just a 1st world nation problem.

applejuice 08-03-2014 03:00 PM

Do you know that the last person to DIE from smallpox was in a teaching hospital in the first world?

This was after the last two wild cases of smallpox had been treated and cured respectively in Somalia and Bangladesh.

Being treated in a first world hospital such as Emory U does not guarantee anything.

kathymuggle 08-03-2014 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat (Post 17885522)

So I'm going with these points:
1. Citizens have a right to return to their home countries.
2. Bringing these two sick people into the US (on specially equipped private jets, which delivered them to specially equipped ambulances, which took them stright to an isolation unit) doesn't result in any risk of disease transmission to people who don't have direct contact with the patients.
.

1. Citizens are denied school. Citizens are denied work opportunites and citizens are denied health-care (not usually emergency - but on occasion).

2. I think the likihood of someone getting Ebola is low. That being said, the liklihood of someone getting Polio on American soil is also low - yet that risk is trumped up with some regualarity.

A lot of this comes down to hypocricy. Don't let unvaxxed kids into school (kids who are not sick, and are extremely unlikely to become sick with most vaccine-available diseases) but fly people with Ebola home? Huh?

For the record - I am pro compassion. I am pro bringing them home. I am also pro letting unvaxxed kids into school. I am pro applying reasonable and logical risk assessment.

MeepyCat 08-03-2014 03:05 PM

On money:

I've said there are practical AS WELL AS economic reasons why there isn't an established vaccine or specific treatment for ebola. Money is part of it.

But now, please, step back and think of money a little more broadly.

Imagine you are a researcher who wants to make a positive difference in people's lives. You know that a variety of diseases cause untold suffering in low-income nations. Do you work in your lab on ebola - an odd little hemorrhagic fever that has a small outbreak every few decades - or do you go to work on Lassa fever, a hemorrhagic illness which infects 100, 000 to 300, 000 people per year? Or on malaria or dengue, which affect millions? Is market size just about money, or is it also measure of how much good you can do?

kathymuggle 08-03-2014 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat (Post 17885658)
IMO - I think A LOT depends on where you live and WHO you are regarding vaccines!

Very much so.

There are all sorts of tropical diseases that hurt many, many people but vaccines are not being developped for them.

A little OT, but read this:

http://www.vaccineethics.org/issue_b...candidates.php

serenbat 08-03-2014 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat (Post 17885642)
I'm pretty familiar with the pro-vaccine side: my mom is a physician with board certifications in both pediatrics and infectious disease. She's spent most of her career in clinical research. We talk about her work all the time. Maybe I'm actually missing the propaganda.


The fact that VPDs are only a plane ride away is not an argument for closing the borders, but as it happens, with two ebola cases in Atlanta, Ebola is still far more than a plane ride away for most Americans. Thete's a plane ride, intensive training in medical skills and isolation unit best practices, and a demanding job application process currently between me and the opportunity to expose myself to ebola.

There are several threads on here that come to my mind, all started by the PRO vaccine.

I DO see quite a bit of "propaganda" out there, not just the large dose that is also on here - http://shotofprevention.com/2011/05/...ane-ride-away/

http://health.usnews.com/health-news...lane-ride-away

$$$$$$$$$$$$ http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skept...nes-maybe-not/

MeepyCat 08-03-2014 03:11 PM

I'm not in this to back pro-vaccine arguments that I haven't made. I'm well aware that people on any side of an argument can say dumb stuff, but I frequently feel that the anti-vaccine side enjoys the process of misinterpreting the opposition and knocking down straw men.

serenbat 08-03-2014 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle (Post 17885714)
Very much so.

There are all sorts of tropical diseases that hurt many, many people but vaccines are not being developped for them.

A little OT, but read this:

http://www.vaccineethics.org/issue_b...candidates.php

thanks Kathy for posting that! Many that don't know it may never realize it, it's so true we only tend to hear about what effects us directly or what can best hold our interest until the next sound bit comes along - Bird flu anyone??

serenbat 08-03-2014 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat (Post 17885746)
I'm not in this to back pro-vaccine arguments that I haven't made. I'm well aware that people on any side of an argument can say dumb stuff, but I frequently feel that the anti-vaccine side enjoys the process of misinterpreting the opposition and knocking down straw men.

So you think it's some kind of "straw man" argument to actually show what the PRO side is saying? :dizzy

And where is your link to say money isn't a factor here? You want to say that too is straw man argument made up by the Anti- vaccine side???

I have never heard or read one anti-vaccine mention "a plane ride away", I have always heard ONLY the PRO side repeat there is no money to be made and like I said, I can't find any messages coming out of the PRO side or Big Pharma that says disease are to be treated naturally - all I hear is to get up to date and vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate.

One side gins up the disease fear factor and it's not the anti-vaccine message!

applejuice 08-03-2014 03:19 PM

In the wake of the arrival of the planes containing the ebola suffering health care workers, Barack Obama has signed an executive order that allows for the apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals with certain severe acute respiratory diseases, not including influenza.

"Severe acute respiratory syndromes, which are diseases that are associated with fever and signs and symptoms of pneumonia or other respiratory illness, are capable of being transmitted from person to person, and that either are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic, or, upon infection, are highly likely to cause mortality or serious morbidity if not properly controlled," the executive order reads. "This subsection does not apply to influenza."

http://www.examiner.com/article/obam...atory-diseases

kathymuggle 08-03-2014 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat (Post 17885746)
I'm not in this to back pro-vaccine arguments that I haven't made. I'm well aware that people on any side of an argument can say dumb stuff, but I frequently feel that the anti-vaccine side enjoys the process of misinterpreting the opposition and knocking down straw men.

Well, you were solid till the bolded. :wink:

I do not think there is any deliberate misrepresentation going on. Several points as to why there is no Ebola vaccine have been made on this thread - most with supporting links from accepted sources:

1. No money in it.
2. Should a vaccine be fast-tracked? Can this have repercussion around trust?
3. Even though Ebola is getting a lot of media attention, should it necessarily have a lot of resources thrown at it, when it is really just an outbreak and not a disease that typically kills huge amounts of people?

All the above are fair points.

I also think discussion of if it safe to bring home ebola victums, if it is hypocritical given the treatment of non-vaxxers and if the lack of fast tracking of an Ebola vaccine would fly in a wealthy country are also important topics and not misrepresentations of any sort.

serenbat 08-03-2014 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applejuice (Post 17885794)
In the wake of the arrival of the planes containing the ebola suffering health care workers, Barack Obama has signed an executive order that allows for the apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals with certain severe acute respiratory diseases, not including influenza.

"Severe acute respiratory syndromes, which are diseases that are associated with fever and signs and symptoms of pneumonia or other respiratory illness, are capable of being transmitted from person to person, and that either are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic, or, upon infection, are highly likely to cause mortality or serious morbidity if not properly controlled," the executive order reads. "This subsection does not apply to influenza."

http://www.examiner.com/article/obam...atory-diseases

thanks for posting that!

Here is some more on it - http://www.infowars.com/if-ebola-hit...e-quarantined/

MeepyCat 08-03-2014 03:24 PM

Serenbat, you've just beautifully illustrated my point. You've wildly misinterpreted my posts (and failed to read at least one) and now you're kicking up dust about how wrong you think the things you think I said are.

This is not a set of conditions under which conversation can actually occur.

serenbat 08-03-2014 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle (Post 17885802)
Well, you were solid till the bolded. :wink:

I do not think there is any deliberate misrepresentation going on. Several points as to why there is no Ebola vaccine have been made on this thread - most with supporting links from accepted sources:

1. No money in it.
2. Should a vaccine be fast-tracked? Can this have repercussion around trust?
3. Even though Ebola is getting a lot of media attention, should it necessarily have a lot of resources thrown at it, when it is really just an outbreak and not a disease that typically kills huge amounts of people?

All the above are fair points.

I also think discussion of if it safe to bring home ebola victums, if it is hypocritical given the treatment of non-vaxxers and if the lack of fast tracking of an Ebola vaccine would fly in a wealthy country are also important topics and not misrepresentations of any sort.


I did hear a conversation today about it and it was mentioned that there are excellent hospitable in South Africa that could have handled this doctor and the nurse (coming in a few days) but that the CDC was pushing for them to be brought here. South Africa has many excellent facilities, without knowing ALL the factors, distance certainly was not one of them - IMO

serenbat 08-03-2014 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat (Post 17885818)
Serenbat, you've just beautifully illustrated my point. You've wildly misinterpreted my posts (and failed to read at least one) and now you're kicking up dust about how wrong you think the things you think I said are.

This is not a set of conditions under which conversation can actually occur.


What do you really mean?

I had asked you to provide a link for your argument regarding the money. I don't think that is wrong or misinterpreting one bit.

You have not provide anything that supports that this is not being done by the PRO side either.

MeepyCat 08-03-2014 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat (Post 17885834)
What do you really mean?

I had asked you to provide a link for your argument regarding the money. I don't think that is wrong or misinterpreting one bit.

You have not provide anything that supports that this is not being done by the PRO side either.

Oh my god.

My argument on money appears, In its entirety, in this thread. It's a set of thoughts I had myself and wrote down. It is influenced both by my personal experience with medical researchers, and by the education I went to business school for. Are you seriously asking for a link where someone else says it for me?

I can't be accountable for every pro-vaccine argument ever made. I certainly don't agree with all of them, and I'm not a clearinghouse for pro-vax ideas on the internet. You keep asking me to be. It's not going to happen.

serenbat 08-03-2014 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat (Post 17885882)
Oh my god.

My argument on money appears, In its entirety, in this thread. It's a set of thoughts I had myself and wrote down. It is influenced both by my personal experience with medical researchers, and by the education I went to business school for. Are you seriously asking for a link where someone else says it for me?

I can't be accountable for every pro-vaccine argument ever made. I certainly don't agree with all of them, and I'm not a clearinghouse for pro-vax ideas on the internet. You keep asking me to be. It's not going to happen.

and my thoughts (with links) are also here, along with those of others and what has been said - have a nice day!

kathymuggle 08-03-2014 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat (Post 17885834)
What do you really mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat (Post 17885882)
Oh my god.

My argument on money appears, In its entirety, in this thread. It's a set of thoughts I had myself and wrote down. It is influenced both by my personal experience with medical researchers, and by the education I went to business school for. Are you seriously asking for a link where someone else says it for me?

I can't be accountable for every pro-vaccine argument ever made. I certainly don't agree with all of them, and I'm not a clearinghouse for pro-vax ideas on the internet. You keep asking me to be. It's not going to happen.

MeepyCat: I started to write something similar to Serenbat, earlier, but erased it due to wanting to stay on topic and not infight. You do seem to be particularly upset that she places more weight on the money argument than you do. I am not sure why.

I think you make a legitimate point about wanting to be taken as an individual, and not as a generic stereotype of a pro-vaxxer. I think that is fair - and I think both sides stereotype - but I am not seeing huge amounts of it (comparatively speaking) on this thread. You could start a separate thread, if you like.


I vote back to Ebola!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.