Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Evidence of govenrment cover-up re: vaccines and autism Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
12-28-2012 01:54 PM
kathymuggle
erigeron, I am not sure what the "nope" was for.  I said autism was defined by symptoms I said there was no biological test for autism.  Both of these statement you agreed with.
You then went on about how they rule out other conditions before reaching a diagnosis, which I did not discuss at all (therefore there is no need for a "nope").  
 
Either you did not read too carefully, there is a miscommunication, or you just like saying "nope" to those you generally disagree with. wink1.gif
12-28-2012 01:30 PM
erigeron
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

How to mince words 101.

There is no biological test for autism as far as I know.  It is defined by its symptoms.  

Of course the government is not going to say the vaccines caused her autism (instead they are going to use wishy-washy statements like manifested and "features of" ).  That might further open Pandoras box and we cannot have that.

Nope. Autism is defined by its symptoms, but that doesn't mean it's diagnosed solely based on those symptoms. Other possible causes of the symptoms are investigated.

 

Heartburn is defined by its symptoms. There is no test for heartburn. But if you show up at the ER with complaints that sound like heartburn, tests will be done to rule out other conditions with similar symptoms (like, fr'instance, a heart attack). That's basically the same as what happened in this case. Autistic symptoms caused by something else aren't autism, any more than heartburn-like symptoms caused by a heart attack are the same as heartburn.

12-28-2012 11:11 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Forgive the source, but this is really one of the clearest rundowns on the Hannah poling case I've been able to find. He does a good job describing mitochondrial disorders and their effects in Lay men's terms, explains how the legal standard used by vicp is far far below a scientific standard,and some other things. In the interest of keeping quotes under 100 words I'll only excerpt this little snippet.
Also he points out and explains that Hannah's diagnosis isn't really autism, anyway.

 

 

This is what the court document said:

"In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-vaccineautism-court-d_b_88558.html?

 

How to mince words 101.

There is no biological test for autism as far as I know.  It is defined by its symptoms.  

Of course the government is not going to say the vaccines caused her autism (instead they are going to use wishy-washy statements like manifested and "features of" ).  That might further open Pandoras box and we cannot have that.

 

12-28-2012 09:09 AM
Chicharronita
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Also he points out and explains that Hannah's diagnosis isn't really autism, anyway.

 

Reading about this case further cements my desire to avoid vaccines; I say no thanks to anything that can cause fever, lethargy, irritation, crying for long periods of time with back arching for TEN DAYS eventually followed by autism-"like" symptoms.

 

Quote:

According to her mother’s affidavit, CHILD developed a fever of 102.3 degrees two days after her immunizations and was lethargic, irritable, and cried for long periods of time. Pet. Ex. 2 at 6. She exhibited intermittent, high-pitched screaming and a decreased response to stimuli. Id. MOM spoke with the pediatrician, who told her that CHILD was having a normal reaction to her immunizations. Id. According to CHILD’s mother, this behavior continued over the next ten days, and CHILD also began to arch her back when she cried. Id.

 

Normal reaction, eh? I'm so glad my dd has never had this kind of "normal" reaction to anything. eyesroll.gif

 

It's interesting that although Hannah developed what the doctor diagnosed as a post-varicella vaccination rash, neither this nor any of her other symptoms were reported to VAERS. 

 

I wonder if one of the reasons why the court had to concede this case is because the parents were medical professionals who dutifully took their daughter to all the recommended pediatric visits so her descent into autism-"like" symptoms after vaccination is fully documented.

 

 

    

12-27-2012 07:55 PM
beckybird

Allopathic medicine is only one form of medicine, and it is not always the best option. It is up to the individual to decide. I agree with Marnica---I prefer natural first, with pharmaceuticals as a last resort.

 

MeepyCat, I saw this tonight and thought of you. Maybe this could help somehow http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/research-curcumin-triple-negative-breast-cancer-killer

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/guide/health-guide-breast-cancer

 

If you choose allopathic treatment, naturopathic treatment, or anywhere in between, it is ultimately your body, your choice.

12-27-2012 04:15 PM
Rrrrrachel Whoops link

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/on-the-rebranding-of-autism-as-a-mitochondrial-disorder-by-antivaccinationists/
12-27-2012 04:14 PM
Rrrrrachel Forgive the source, but this is really one of the clearest rundowns on the Hannah poling case I've been able to find. He does a good job describing mitochondrial disorders and their effects in Lay men's terms, explains how the legal standard used by vicp is far far below a scientific standard,and some other things. In the interest of keeping quotes under 100 words I'll only excerpt this little snippet.
Quote:
The bottom line is that it is fever from any source, be it a vaccine reaction or, more commonly, an infection that can exacerbate mitochondrial disorders and provoke encephalopathy. Moreover, because of the confounding factor of multiple ear infections, it’s not 100% clear that Hannah’s vaccinations even caused her regression, although it is certainly possible.

Also he points out and explains that Hannah's diagnosis isn't really autism, anyway.
12-27-2012 01:38 PM
Chicharronita
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

This article says about 1/4000 people have mitochondrial disorders.  It looks like mitochondrial disorders are not always easy to diagnose and that diagnosis can be from infancy to adulthood.  

http://www.mitoaction.org/mito-faq#how.  

 

Thanks for the link.

 

Hmm, this reminds me of the Hannah Poling case.

 

I would guess that if it were easy to diagnose, her parents who were medical professionals would have had it checked if there had been symptoms. As it is even a DNA test isn't always reliable.

 

It makes me wonder how many other "rare" underlying conditions there are that may be "aggravated" by vaccines. 

12-27-2012 01:30 PM
kathymuggle

nm

12-27-2012 01:11 PM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

And ftr I also prefer to tat things naturally as possible. I just find the mentality that natural is automatically better completely foolish and almost always hypocritical.

 hmmm so you also choose to do things naturally when and if it makes sense for you. This is the sentiment that MOST people who use alternative medicine subscribe to. And again, feeling that man monkeys around with Mother Nature too much and too often and maybe should back off in certain circumstances has nothing to do with convenience and is certainly not a black and white issue. I also don't see the mentality that natural automatically means better in all cases no exceptions going on here. Why can't natural = better whenever the natural choice is feasible and makes sense to the "user"? It can according to your own admission of preferring to do things naturally when possible. Doesn't mean its automatically better in all cases.

12-27-2012 12:56 PM
Rrrrrachel And ftr I also prefer to tat things naturally as possible. I just find the mentality that natural is automatically better completely foolish and almost always hypocritical.
12-27-2012 12:55 PM
Rrrrrachel Man shouldn't monkey around with Mother Nature . . . Unless its too inconvenient?
12-27-2012 12:38 PM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

So can I assume these people who are all "quit fooling around with nature" live in caves wth no artificial lights to mess with their natural sleep/wake cycles or electricity or wireless routers to produce harmful emf?
The irony of the argument is astounding.

Again with that black and white thinking....why is it soooooooooooooooooooo hard for you and others to understand that there are people out there that prefer to treat their health and any health problems as naturally as possible?? Having a healthy respect for Mother Nature and being of the opinion that man might do well to monkey around with it a bit less doesn't mean that people live in caves etc. There really is no irony. Just your inability to see any grey. 

12-27-2012 12:27 PM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

 

Lanamommyphd07, etc. - You're drawing a distinction between allopathic medicine (which you appear to approve of), and pharmaceuticals that I just don't understand.  You appear to be saying that it was probably okay to remove the tumor in my breast, because that won't mess with nature (and maybe somehow doesn't involve chemicals, although you appear to be discounting the extremely effective anesthesia that made the surgery a whole lot easier to survive and cope with), but it's probably not okay to give me chemotherapy drugs that prevent the cancer from recurring.  And possibly that I should somehow make peace with the notion of dying in my thirties even though alternatives exist for me, because that's better for the species.

 

 

dizzy.gif WHAT???????  Even if I made a huge leap here, I cannot see where lanamommy has said or even hinted at the above. The distinction that is being drawn seems to be in your own head because you are totally on the defensive. Again I ask, why is it such a problem for those who choose to use alternatives to use alternatives? If I had cancer and chose to deal with it in some alternative manner, why would that bother you so much? If I choose to avoid pharmaceuticals if possible whats it to you? I really just don't get it

12-27-2012 10:58 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

 

 

Lanamommyphd07, etc. - You're drawing a distinction between allopathic medicine (which you appear to approve of), and pharmaceuticals that I just don't understand.  You appear to be saying that it was probably okay to remove the tumor in my breast, because that won't mess with nature (and maybe somehow doesn't involve chemicals, although you appear to be discounting the extremely effective anesthesia that made the surgery a whole lot easier to survive and cope with), but it's probably not okay to give me chemotherapy drugs that prevent the cancer from recurring.  And possibly that I should somehow make peace with the notion of dying in my thirties even though alternatives exist for me, because that's better for the species.

 

 

Yes, she said this.  eyesroll.gif

 

Your anger is clouding your reading comprehension, or you are being deliberately obtuse to further your agenda of saying nasty things to non-vaxxers (including a newbie to this forum- way to welcome and scare one off, btw! Points to you)

 

Flag away.  

 

ETA: a fairly smart non-vaxxer once said that when the other side starts in on such diversion tactics, it is because they do not like how the conversation is going.

 

I sheepishly admit I simply skimmed the Op as long posts get a little hard to read.  I urge anyone genuinely interested in this topic to go over the Op, there are some good reasons the pro-vax side wants to divert the thread wink1.gif

 

ETA part 2:  MeepyCat - I am sorry you have cancer.  I hope you recover.  I do not care if you use allopathic or natural methods to help you.  

12-27-2012 10:35 AM
kathymuggle
dbl post
12-27-2012 10:19 AM
kathymuggle

…and back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

I could not digest the full OP in one go.  There were a lot of links and information.

 

I clicked on  these links this morning.  My comments are in blue afterwards.

 

 

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/rh-4.pdf

I cannot cut and paste. Long story short, vaccines were found to severely aggravate a child's underlying mitochondrial disorder, causing regressive enchalopathy and features of the autism spectrum. The conclusions are worth a read (and worded far better than I did here).  They are in red brackets on page 3.

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

This article says about 1/4000 people have mitochondrial disorders.  It looks like mitochondrial disorders are not always easy to diagnose and that diagnosis can be from infancy to adulthood.  http://www.mitoaction.org/mito-faq#how.   Suffice to say, I bet a lot of children with mitochondrial disorder are vaccinated before their parents realize they have a mitochondrial disorder.

 

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/rh-memo-1.pdf

"The filing requirements of The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 are a procedural requirement which kept the vaccine/autism issue out of courts of law for over 25 years. The procedural “catch 22” of vaccine court works as follows. Under the Vaccine Act, before the parents of a vaccine injured child may file a lawsuit in a court of law, they must first timely file a claim in “vaccine court.” However, the Vaccine Act has a 3 year statute of limitations, which begins to run upon the first symptom of injury. Under the CDC vaccine schedule children receive their first vaccinations either at birth or 2 months of age. However, in most cases, children are not diagnosed with autism until they are 3 or 4 years old. Therefore, by the time the child is diagnosed with autism, the statute of limitations has run in “vaccine court” and the parents are forever denied the right to proceed with a lawsuit in a court of law."

Bolding mine.  banghead.gif   I get that courts need a statute of limitations, but the stats I have seen for average age of diagnosis of ASD is 3-6 years old.  

 

12-27-2012 10:10 AM
serenbat

just my 2cents- I see how this is going (assume others do) and it's really not worth making much statements only to be attracted for opinion- the pro vac side always seem to throw these threads- for the good of others.

 

I am just one that hates all the nasties that are in my water from those who are taking drugs yet polluting other by doing so. Sure I will get flamed for feel this way but it's the truth- the actions of others do effect the masses. No one seems to care what their drugs are doing to the water supply of young children yet go after the non-vacers! greensad.gif

12-27-2012 09:46 AM
MeepyCat

Taximom - I actually think the herd should be vaccinated to protect the people who can't safely receive vaccinations.  I'd like better and safer vaccinations and treatments.  I'd like some kind of testing to judge whether a person is likely to have an adverse reaction to a vaccine.

 

Lanamommyphd07, etc. - You're drawing a distinction between allopathic medicine (which you appear to approve of), and pharmaceuticals that I just don't understand.  You appear to be saying that it was probably okay to remove the tumor in my breast, because that won't mess with nature (and maybe somehow doesn't involve chemicals, although you appear to be discounting the extremely effective anesthesia that made the surgery a whole lot easier to survive and cope with), but it's probably not okay to give me chemotherapy drugs that prevent the cancer from recurring.  And possibly that I should somehow make peace with the notion of dying in my thirties even though alternatives exist for me, because that's better for the species.

 

A lot of modern medicine is founded on the theory that it sucks when people die young, and we should work to prevent it.  Given the choice, I'm throwing my lot in with the people who are in favor of longer life for the greater number.  If there is a massive social collapse sometimes down the road, and people start dying of those preventable causes again, that will be tragic.  I don't think we can prevent that collapse by denying people medical treatment now.

12-27-2012 09:23 AM
lanamommyphd07

mmmm. Using chem to f with Mother Nature. That is the thing that gives me pause. These are the messes we are already dealing with. How messy will it be in 500 years? Are we doing damage to the very DNA of humans? This is what I am referring to, not some crazy eugenics plan. I am not some Nazi. And my concerns go far beyond vaccines and into agriculture and the like. The cover-upping concerns are valid, I think, because of the other chem-related disasters. We are just a blip in human history, but what kind of heinous things could we be doing in our short time here?

 

When folks have asked why I didn't vax dd for chicken pox, my reply has been that I am not afraid of that one. Their response has been "BUT SHE COULD DIE!!" Yes, that is feasible. Not probable, but I think a general fear of death, especially of children, is why things like vaccines hit the market before we really know what else they are doing. 

 

By not using chem to screw with nature, we can still have allopathic medicine, we can still fix problems with allopathic medicine. Allopathic med can be more than slinging drugs. I'm not implying that we should all just lay down and accept whatever is dealt us, and let broken bones just be broken, or let appendixes blow. I'm saying that instead of finding a vaccine to prevent a blown appendix, we might hone our skills in other ways that might not leave such a mess for the ones that come after us. I'm saying that sometimes a plague or disease hits the human species, and it sucks, but we have continued. It might be worth looking more at what made some survive and others not. When we monkey around with things and attempt to prevent the disease (with chem) from blowing through as opposed to healing that disease or recovering from it, what are the effects? We don't really know yet, and this concerns me. And it troubles me that people are more afraid of present-day deaths than of what damage we could be doing overall. It troubles me that so much foreign stuff is showing up in our bodies.

 

My apologies to the OP for any unintentional steerage to crazy-talk.

12-27-2012 07:34 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

I'd be dead (ruptured appendix) if I followed the path of Mother Nature.  I'm kind of glad I didn't.

and that was the right path in that instance. 

 

Sometimes the path of mother nature makes more sense (say, most but not all, childbirth scenarios).

 

It does not have to be always mother nature or never mother nature.

12-27-2012 07:30 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

 

I have been working on this response for twenty minutes.

 

It comes down to "I cannot believe you just spouted that ridiculous, anti-humanist, eugenicist thing that you just spouted.  Holy shit."  There is a coda about all the dead people that I know, and that I suspect you know.

 

Nature does not have a plan, and nature is a lousy enforcer.  The people with the least access to modern medicine and pharmaceuticals are not doing better then the rest of us, they are not evolving to some more perfect species, and they get to deal with a lot more grief then we do.  if Nature was going to winnow us to that perfect species, Nature wasted its chances over the course of many thousand years.

…and a merry festivus to you too!!!!!  

 

 

lanamommyphd07 sorry you were called a eugenicist, anti-humanist, etc for voicing your opinion.  I was called it once for suggesting mumps did not need to be on the vaccine schedule.  Yeah.  It is not about you or your post -  it is about demonizing non-vaxxers. I read your post and I agree with a lot of it.  I do not think there is going to be a "cleaning house" so to speak, but I do think as we get rid or lessen one disease, another one pops up or increases. We are not meant to live forever.  I also do not  think the survival of the species relies on pharmaceuticals, but they can be very useful in certain circumstances.  I think pharmaceuticals can promote health (defined broadly) when used appropriately, and do not promote health when used inappropriately. 

12-27-2012 07:12 AM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

I'd be dead (ruptured appendix) if I followed the path of Mother Nature.  I'm kind of glad I didn't.

There is so much black and white thinking in this thread it makes my head spin. When did everybody get so concrete? 

 

 

Lets recap. I'm pretty sure NOBODY on this thread has said they would never ever ever ever use allopathic medicine if the need arose. Many people have said that they prefer to follow mother nature for many things. Kathy has summed it up nicely. It is figuring out when to use what that is they key. I have said this myself in another thread. I prefer to use alternative medicine most of the time. In fact I used to be an allopathic medicine junky. On lots of rx meds for all kinds of things, had asthma, allergies, chronic pain you name it and I'm young (or was when I had all these things going on). It was when I decided allopathic medicine wasn't helping me, it had nothing to offer me and I decided to start researching and trying alternative medicine that I began to regain my health. My asthma "disappeared" I haven't used an inhaler in 8 years. My allergies barely bother me - no meds here. I get sick a hell of alot less and have no more chronic pain - go figure. Does that mean when I had an atypical presentation for appendicitis that I didn't go to the doctor and have my appendix out? No. Does that mean when I had an ear infection that didn't respond to all of my natural things that I use which usually help, I didn't go to the doctor and get abx? No. Why is is such a problem for allopathic worshipers to let those of us who choose to follow mother nature when appropriate for ourselves and our family? We are not sitting around putting ourselves or our kids in danger and not seeking medical attention when it is warranted.

12-27-2012 04:16 AM
Rrrrrachel So can I assume these people who are all "quit fooling around with nature" live in caves wth no artificial lights to mess with their natural sleep/wake cycles or electricity or wireless routers to produce harmful emf?

The irony of the argument is astounding.
12-26-2012 10:10 PM
pers
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 View Post

Mother Nature does not want everyone to survive. She cleans house now and again, but the human race has continued. I just wonder if we've gotten a bit big for our britches and in a few generations they'll still be cleaning up the mess (if the species makes it that far). We've done so much monkeying around with things in the last century--I believe this is why we're all stuck with the questions. Our society is so afraid of death that we're willing to spend decades living in pain to cheat it. I just cannot fathom that the survival of humans is dependent upon pharma. I just can't.

 

 

So afraid of death that we are willing to spend decades living in pain to cheat it?  Really?

 

Or rather, perhaps, so in love with life that many find it is worth dealing with the pain so that they may continue to enjoy the beauty of a sunset or the thrill of a good book or the joy of the company of a good friend.  It is possible to be in considerable pain and yet still want to live not because of fear of death but because they find life is still worth living.

 

The human race as a whole is not in danger of extinction.  It would continue on just fine, if in lower numbers, if pharma disappeared overnight. Would we be happier though with more of our children or nieces or nephews or friends children dying?  With more people living crippled from polio, having children with terrible birth defects from congenital rubella, brain damaged from measles, deaf from untreated ear infections, dead from asthma attacks (or is urban pollution going to magically disappear with pharma?  that would probably help some), brain damaged from PKU.  With leprosy and tuberculosis making a comeback? Both are still diagnosed in the US occasionally, but rare because they are not very contagious so usually don't spread to too many people (sometimes not anyone else at all)  before antibiotics kick in and make them no longer contagious.  But if they were left untreated? 

 

The survival of the human race is not dependant on pharma.  The survival of many individuals in it, however, is.  

12-26-2012 09:30 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

I have been working on this response for twenty minutes.

It comes down to "I cannot believe you just spouted that ridiculous, anti-humanist, eugenicist thing that you just spouted.  Holy shit." 

One can just as easily say that sacrificing the subgroup who have terrible reactions to vaccines in order to protect the "herd" against "vaccine-preventable diseases" is ridiculous, anti-humanist, eugenicist rhetoric.

And that's not even considering the fact that increasing evidence is being uncovered that some of the most heavily marketed vaccines are not effective, and that some are not even necessary in countries with adequate sanitation and health care.

With flu being marketed as a "vaccine-preventable disease," in spite of the poor effectiveness and high risks of the flu shot, and with health care companies FIRING workers--even pregnant women--for refusing the flu shot, the ol' eugenicist argument against those who question and criticize vaccine safety just doesn't carry any water.

It's also now recognized as one of many industry strategic ploys: "let's demonize vaccine questioners as eugenicists as a way of getting the focus away from the many problems with today's vaccinations. And while we're at it, let's deny that vaccines are a multimillion dollar business, and pretend that pharmaceutical companies don't make money from them. And let's pretend vaccine reactions are vanishingly rare. If we say it enough, people will believe it."
12-26-2012 08:44 PM
MeepyCat
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 View Post

Mother Nature does not want everyone to survive. She cleans house now and again, but the human race has continued. I just wonder if we've gotten a bit big for our britches and in a few generations they'll still be cleaning up the mess (if the species makes it that far). We've done so much monkeying around with things in the last century--I believe this is why we're all stuck with the questions. Our society is so afraid of death that we're willing to spend decades living in pain to cheat it. I just cannot fathom that the survival of humans is dependent upon pharma. I just can't.

 

I have been working on this response for twenty minutes.

 

It comes down to "I cannot believe you just spouted that ridiculous, anti-humanist, eugenicist thing that you just spouted.  Holy shit."  There is a coda about all the dead people that I know, and that I suspect you know.

 

Nature does not have a plan, and nature is a lousy enforcer.  The people with the least access to modern medicine and pharmaceuticals are not doing better then the rest of us, they are not evolving to some more perfect species, and they get to deal with a lot more grief then we do.  if Nature was going to winnow us to that perfect species, Nature wasted its chances over the course of many thousand years.

12-26-2012 08:20 PM
chickabiddy

I'd be dead (ruptured appendix) if I followed the path of Mother Nature.  I'm kind of glad I didn't.

12-26-2012 08:09 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Vaccines have risks.  Most children are just fine after vaccinations, but a few are not.

 

Vaccine-avoidable diseases have risks, too.  Most children recover just fine after a VAD, but a few do not.

 

It is naive and romanticized to assume that Mother Nature wants everyone to survive and thrive.  The human race is "designed" to lose a few along the way, and VADs are one of the ways that we've lost babies and children in the past.

 

Who said this?  I said I wanted more from medicine - which is to survive and thrive.  

 

Mother nature doesn't "want" anything.  

 

I tend to think following the path of mother nature is usually a good thing for most people; I also think knowing when to intervene and when not to intervene is one of the cruxes of health.  

12-26-2012 08:00 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Kathy I'm glad that you have so much privilege in your life that you can make that statement.

I acknowledge the privilege of being in good health and in a wealthy country.  I am quite grateful for it smile.gif

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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