General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBlueJazz
(25,348 posts)That's why the power-ball never rolls over.
csziggy
(34,131 posts)When I was in the hospital I had a hard time getting them to NOT serve me sausage for breakfast. Most sausage has at least some hot peppers in it - something I simply cannot eat. The dietician came in to fuss at me the fourth day I left the sausage on my plate - apparently tests showed I was low on protein so he really wanted me to eat every protein dish he sent out.
I told him I couldn't eat the peppers in the sausage and if he wanted to give me more protein, throw an extra egg on the breakfast tray, not sausage. He responded by telling me that the sausage couldn't make me sick - it was organic! I told him poison ivy was also organic but it could cause reactions in most people.
He made sure to indicate on my chart for the rest of my hospital stay to not serve me any sausage or anything else with hot peppers.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Botulism toxin. Its LD50 is 100x lower than Vx nerve gas. (LD50 is the dose required to kill 50% of the people you give it to - lethality is a parabola, not a single value)
derby378
(30,252 posts)Most powerful acid in the known universe, 20 quintillion times stronger than sulfuric acid. I think it can give botulinum a run for its money, pound for pound.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)first thing in the morning (preferably coconut oil, which is mostly solid at room temperature but will liquify in your mouth) will remove toxins from your mouth. When you spit it out after 20 min, look how milky it is. Those are the toxins.
ARGHHHH!!!!!!! Ignore the amount of saliva your mouth produces in 20 min and the enzymes in your saliva breaking down that fat. Ignore all that and focus on those toxins that have been removed and notice how much better your mouth feels. ARGHHHH!!!!!!!!
It's been done for ages and doesn't hurt anyone but will help remove toxins and let your body heal, naturally. ARGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The name? Oil pulling. ARGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)it seems to get the dirt off too
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)it turns milky due to saliva and digesting the fat if you use oil. Not because you have removed toxins. Use salt water, for instance.
What dirt do you have in your mouth?
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)plaque, to be more specific. after I'm done my teeth seem less stained, esp in the hard-to-get areas that my brush doesn't reach as well.
I have no idea if the removing toxins bit is true, but it seems to do something for me.
think the oil is recommended b/c something to do with nonpolar covalent bonding whereas the water molecules tend to be charged. for the same reason that we use soap when we wash our hands.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)substance. Are you saying swishing oil in your mouth, mixed with saliva = soap? Saliva is not a strong alkaline. Instead it fluctuates on both sides of neutral (6.5-7.4) depending on the time of day, what is in the mouth, etc.
Next, off to do some research and here are the results. Please not I did not research before I replied before, and before I wrote the above parts. And here are some random links, some from sites I know, some I don't know but were on page 1 of the search for Oil Pulling.
Snopes agrees it any benefit comes from rinsing the mouth and to beware, that lipid pneumonia could occur (oil enters the lungs)
http://www.snopes.com/medical/homecure/oilpulling.asp
Overall, as is true for many folk remedies, oil pulling therapy has insufficient peer-reviewed scientific studies to support its use for oral conditions.
Current reports on the potential health benefits of oil pulling have clear limitations. Existing studies are unreliable for a number of reasons, including the misinterpretation of results due to small sample size, confounders, absence of negative controls, lack of demographic information, and lack of blinding. To date, scientific studies have not provided the necessary clinical evidence to demonstrate that oil pulling reduces the incidence of dental caries, whitens teeth or improves oral health and well-being.
Based on the lack of currently available evidence, oil pulling is not recommended as a supplementary oral hygiene practice, and certainly not as a replacement for standard, time-tested oral health behaviors and modalities.
(clip)
Recent articles in the media recommending oil pulling procedures generally have not described potential adverse health effects, but case reports of lipoid pneumonia associated with oil pulling or mineral oil aspiration have appeared in the literature. In addition, cases of diarrhea or upset stomach have been reported....
This link explains what Snopes says in a more readable manner.
http://www.sheknows.com/beauty-and-style/articles/1032339/what-is-oil-pulling-and-why-is-it-a-thing
These guys say it may do something, is better than nothing if you can't brush, floss, rinse, but it is due to swishing not "removing toxins". They cite a couple studies showing it may help oral hygiene.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/oil-pulling-your-leg/
Recently several researchers have done small pilot studies looking at the effects of oil pulling. Some are overtly trying to support traditional Indian treatments, but at least they are clear about their biases. In any case, these small studies show that swishing oil in the mouth daily does have an effect, unsurprisingly, on oral bacteria.
(clip)
Conclusion
Oil pulling is a suggestive misnomer, implying that something bad is being pulled from the mouth (toxins and bacteria). What little scientific evidence exists shows that it is probably not as effective as standard mouth wash, and what benefit it has is likely entirely due to the mechanical act of swishing to remove particles and bacteria from teeth and gums.
There is no reason either theoretically or based upon any evidence to recommend oil pulling (which should be renamed oil-swishing) instead of standard modern health care with flossing, tooth-brushing, and mouth rinse. However, it does appear to be better than nothing, and might have a role in developing countries without access to modern oral care. The one caveat is that extended periods of swishing that are commonly recommended (10-20 minutes) are likely not necessary and further present a risk of lipoid pneumonia from accidentally breathing in small amounts of oil.
Oil pulling for general health or any other indication is pure pseudoscience. Detox claims are based on nothing, as are all detox claims. There is no evidence or plausible rationale to recommend oil pulling for any indication other than as a poor substitute for oral care.
Another random link ends with this, it probably won't hurt, but won't remove toxins, instead cleans the mouth.
http://www.divinecaroline.com/self/fact-or-fad-what-you-need-know-about-oil-pulling
Where does that leave us then? What might oil-pulling do for youor to youif it wont cleanse your entire system of every little microbial baddie it can stick to? One thing it will likely do is help with your overall oral health by way of the simple emulsification that happens as the oil mixes with your saliva. For the layperson, emulsification is what makes soap. And we all know that soap makes things clean. So, in a sense, oil-pulling is like making soap to clean your mouth. To support this, the majority of testimonials as to the benefits of oil-pulling do focus on renewed health of the teeth, gums, palate, and tongue. The long and short of it is that no matter what, oil-pulling will not likely cause you any harm at all. Youll just have to consider if thats how you want to spend twenty minutes every morning.
This last one is rather rude about the "toxin" and health claims
http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/can-oil-pulling-improve-your-health-140311.htm
(clip)
The fact that oil pulling has been used for thousand of years (if indeed it has) is asserted as proof of its efficacy but in fact means nothing. This is an example of a logical fallacy called the appeal to tradition. Just because a practice has endured for hundreds or thousands of years does not mean it is valid. For nearly 2,000 years, for example, physicians practiced bloodletting, believing that balancing non-existent bodily humors would restore health to sick patients.
(clip)
Vegetable oil is not needed to detoxify teeth and gums for the simple reason that teeth and gums are not toxic in the first place. Claims of detoxification and cleansing have been important (and lucrative) for the New Age and alternative medicine industries. The world is full of dangerous toxins, they claim, and in order to get healthy and you need to periodically remove impurities from your body.
(clip)
So what does oil pulling actually do? Probably nothing. Only a handful of medical studies have been done on the benefits of oil pulling, all of them from India and none of them seeming to show a consistent benefit for any particular condition. Theres nothing wrong with gargling or swishing your mouth out with natural oils (diluted peppermint oil, for example, is a natural antiseptic that will leave your breath nice and fresh). But theres nothing unique or particularly healthy about swishing oils in your mouth.
So, aside from inhaling oil into your lungs, my take is that it won't hurt you. A good oral hygiene routine of brushing and flossing and rinsing will do more to keep your mouth healthy. Adding swishing of anything won't hurt, could help with mechanically removing material, rather like a long rinse and what liquid you use doesn't really matter. It won't cure health problems, does not "remove toxins", forget those claims.
Thank you for replying and inspiring me to do some research on this. That is meant seriously.
ETA of course one more study popped up. This one is interesting as it gives some advice as to why to use water vs oil which seems appropriate (availability, cost, disposal). They used tap and distilled water and oils.
http://www.healingteethnaturally.com/water-pulling-vs-oil-pulling.html#
First trial study: no statistically significant difference in oral bacteria and plaque reduction potential....(more)
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)some of the ayurvedic medicinal practices are quite interesting to think abt.
one of the confounding problems of medicine is that there is so much we don't know compared to what we already do.
when dealing with one's health it seems most prudent to go with what works, or, rather, what seems to, as it is difficult to be aware of all the variables involved.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Nonpolar covalent bonding is technobabble. It is meaningless.
Covalent bonds are chemical bonds. The things holding together the hydrogens and oxygen to make water.
Nonpolar molecules are molecules without a region of electrical charge. Fats are nonpolar, as well as some proteins. Water is polar - the oxygen is a little negative and the hydrogens are a little positive.
Moving on, if the theory was correct that you needed a nonpolar solvent to remove tartar was correct, you've still got it in your mouth when you're done. You would have lifted it off your teeth, but it is still in the oil that remains in your mouth. You will have very slightly diluted it by the relatively small volume you spit out.
When you wash your hands with soap, all polar molecules are washed away by the water - if you have salt on your hands, water alone will remove it. Because water can stick to other polar molecules. The soap isn't relevant for polar molecules.
The reason we add soap (or detergent) when washing is the soap molecules are very long, with one polar end and one non-polar end. The non-polar end sticks to lipids (fats, oils, etc). The polar end sticks to water. Thus the water is able to wash away the soap molecule, as well as the lipid the soap is attached to.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)I started to write on that also but deleted it.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)I have no idea if it removes tartar, but clearly removes other non-charged materials on the teeth.
or, rather, dilutes, as you have put it.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)My favorite is Quantum Woo, as kooks like Deepak Chopra promote. Or, I've never heard of any Woo I won't support, mainly because Oprah supports me, Dr. Oz. And any time somebody says the word "energy" in conjunction with "healing" one can be sure that they understand neither energy nor healing.
And arsenic is natural, as is botulism, both exquisitely toxic. The former has no medical uses; the latter has many. Just ask Jenny McCarthy about botulism.
The bottom line is that science is a bitch. Either learn about it, or shut your pie hole.
Regards.
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)I haven't even digested all this yet and still I know its value. I'm going to print for myself and send to my kids.
rpannier
(24,328 posts)Arsenic and sharks are natural
Gotta remember that
This is one of my faves. I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV
nikto
(3,284 posts)Just askin'.
Archae
(46,301 posts)Good article here:
http://skepdic.com/acupuncture.html
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)Given the fact that studies have shown that it has the same results regardless of where the needles are placed (random vs. traditional techniques) and the fact that you get basically the same results whether needles are inserted or not, it certainly calls into question what really is at work in acupuncture.
It could be placebo. It could be some kind of endorphin reaction.
The whole "meridian/qi" thing is pretty much quackery.
And if someone starts telling you to treat your diabetes, HIV, poor eyesight, and hemorrhoids with acupuncture, run away.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 2, 2015, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)
Not exactly a "new-agey" bunch.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)Archae
(46,301 posts)"Standing on my head singing Dixie cured my athletes' foot!"
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)Your mileage may vary. I've no doubt that there are plenty of people that believe it works for them, but it doesn't exactly make for good science.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Remember when all of the sudden every football player was wearing one of those breathing strips? Or when it seemed like half of the MLB players were wearing those magnet necklaces?
Baseball players in particular are FAMOUSLY superstitious.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Nobody is as superstitious as an athlete. Lucky shirts, lucky shoes, lucky socks complete with blood, pre-game rituals, etc.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thus, it's a rather elaborate placebo.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/can-we-finally-just-say-that-acupuncture-is-nothing-more-than-an-elaborate-placebo/
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)I've succesfully used acupuncture to stop migraine headaches.
whether or not I was simply manipulating endorphin production, I don't know.
I'll agree that the theory of 'qi' is bs.
however I have had good success w/ acupuncture in treating my various pain disorders. and I know I'm not the only one.
wouldn't recommend it for diabetes tho.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Acupuncture that claims to work by releasing endorphins to deal with some pain, no.
Means of action are important in determining pseudoscience from science.
Quackers
(2,256 posts)Archae
(46,301 posts)Homeopathic child sedatives?
Homeopathic child vaccines?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026294003
nikto
(3,284 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 2, 2015, 01:51 AM - Edit history (2)
IMO, it is quackery to insist prescription drugs for stomach acid/upsets work better than simple, pure
ginger extracts.
For digestive problems involving excess acid/burning...
Ginger>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>commercial drugs sold for stomach acid relief.
There may be other examples, or not.
But, from my personal experience, that one is definite.
In our rush to uphold science, let's not turn to 2-dimensional thinking and blind acceptance of
any and all for-profit commercial healthcare option$.
Stay on the lookout for science messages to be occasionally combined with/Piggybacked-on corporate messaging,
which is a new method of propaganda I see out there these days.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Your anecdote is nice. Doesn't mean it's actually true.
There are many causes of "excess acid/burning". Ginger won't work for people who have a bacterial infection. Won't work for people who actually need something alkaline to neutralize the acid. It appears you more-or-less just need to just eat something.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Perhaps I should have added a qualifier like "always" in my 1st sentence (no remedy "always" works for everybody the same way).
Ginger does work, better than many store-bought remedies. Pretty much every time for me.
Do store bought prescriptions work for everyone all the time?
Maybe for some. But it varies.
Ginger is an ancient remedy that works very well for many people.
You are really unaware of this?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)than "you are depicted in the first panel of the cartoon."
And now we've added panel #4 from the cartoon.
No, I'm entirely aware of the placebo effect. For you it's ginger. For others, it's a glass of warm milk. Still others use something starchy like bread. Others use an herbal tea. And so on.
In all of these cases, they settle their stomach by eating something. And very often, therapeutic powers are assigned to their chosen food or beverage.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)which lets some stomach acid back up into the esophagus. The esophagus's lining is not suited to deal with this acid like the stomach is so it burns, hurts, there is the heartburn.
How to deal with this is eat less at a time, sit upright after eating, lose weight if appropriate since excess abdominal fat puts pressure on your abdomen.
However, there are other causes of burning in your stomach, including ulcers from bacteria or overuse of NSAIDs. Those need different treatments to fix.
There are very few diseases or conditions that actually produce "excess acid", most of our bodies produce the right amount.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Piggy-backing on science can really help catapult the propaganda.
It's smart to always do a quick "cui bono" when seeing linkages in this area.
Example of propaganda "piggy-backing":
"Watch out for those T-bagging anti-science freaks who doubt things like vaccinations, climate change
and the wonderfulness of GMOs."
Can YOU spot the thing (1 out of 3) that does not belong?
If you can't, you may already be a victim of propaganda.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)A very common sign of woo is that proven cures/treatments are just profiteering, that "all natural" i.e. totally unproven nostrums are the way.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)And you probably think that that's the answer because you believe that the safety of GMOs is not demonstrated by science.
You are incorrect, of course, but you're still free to think that way, especially if it helps you feel as though you've made some zinger of a point.
When discussing science that is very well supported, it is reasonable to include the well-supported science of GMOs along with the well-supported science of vaccines and global warming.
Despite your assertion, it's actually not "piggy-backing" at all.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)esp the anti-vaxxers.
although I've read some discussions abt additives on random health boards which I thought were interesting and maybe not completely invalid.
the pro-gmo posters I have read on DU recently seem very aggressive with their POVs which I find offputting. I'm not cynical enough to believe in paid trolls, but I wonder what makes y'all so dogmatic.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)So when people employ flawed or fallacious tactics to argue against sound science--arguments based ultimately in ignorance, fear and propaganda, it becomes tiresome to debunk the same bullshit again and again.
That's not to say that all anti-GMO types engage in such trickery, nor that their concerns are real, but the piling-on of pseudoscience and false information ultimately requires no more courteous a response than you've seen.
Also, let's not pretend that the anti-GMO crowd is commendably polite or courteous, either. Many of that crowd are happy to flinging insults and accusations of shilling for Monsanto, etc.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)probably hires a lot of shills.
so far not too much debunking from the pro-gmo crowd here, more personal attacks. I think you can do better.
but the piling-on of pseudoscience and false information ultimately requires no more courteous a response than you've seen.
courtesy is always required, tho.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)
In your view, is financial gain the only possible motive behind advocating for a position? Do you not see how limited and insulting that is? Is the anti-GMO crowd motivated solely by a desire for profit? If not, then you're committing the fallacy of special pleading in addition to making fallacious ad hominem attacks. Of course, that doesn't mean that your overall position is incorrect; it simply means that you are employing tactics that do not advance or support your position.
courtesy is always required, tho.
monsanto has a lot of money probably hires a lot of shills.
Elsewhere in these threads, amid dozens of direct insults and accusations that I'm a shill, I've been told that I'm thin-skinned and too sensitive. And you're lecturing me for a failure of civility? Puh-leeze.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)read better plz.
I suggest that you also direct your scoldings at the anti-GMO crowd, who are invariably quick to open fire upon anyone who doubts the lethality of GMOs.
from what I've seen on this forum they have been extremely polite & shown much restraint.
In other words, you don't believe in paid shills, but you believe in paid shills. If you don't recognize those inconsistent statements as a thinly veiled insult, then you're being disingenuous
am I supposed to respond to this? I don't think you are a shill and I hope you are not a shill but monsanto has a lot of money and influence and can probably buy ppl as needed. I believe 'paid trolls' and 'shills' are two different words. read better.
that said I'm curious as to why you are so angry and dogmatic upon this point. most ppl who are interested in truth and clear communication don't respond the way you do. what drives you?
nikto
(3,284 posts)He's a GMO-promoter.
Possibly a neoliberal, possibly not.
I'm very curious.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)and that's not a compliment.
other than that, you got me.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I'm not sure why poster personalities matter.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)you oughta try it.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I see there are many pseudoscientific concepts that you seem to support.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)and sometimes that means not jumping to conclusions on complex matters too quickly
stop bastardizing its meaning for your ideological goals
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You seem to think you can make science bend to your hopes.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)and while we're flinging ad hominems, the term "utilize" doesn't make you sound smarter, much the opposite
nikto
(3,284 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 2, 2015, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)
I ask you this in all sincerity, so please give me an honest answer, however brief.
If you have a sincere question in response, I will honestly answer it in good faith.
I'll make it easier, if that helps (mult. choice)--I am not being sarcastic, at all.
What is your opinion of the economic philosophy of Milton Friedman:
1---Mostly agree with it (it has many good points).
2--Mostly disagree with it. (May agree with a few points, but not most).
3--Strongly agree with it (it "rocks" in most aspects).
4--Strongly disagree with it. (I think it is just wrong, in its entirety)
I'm not honestly NOT being smartass, or trying for a "zinger".
Just honestly choose one of these, or write your own that is clear and direct in describing
your feeling/opinion about the subject (MF's philosophy).
I promise not to start debating it further on this thread.
We can do that on another, if you like.
Or not.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)or an extension of an economic philosophy (Milton Friedmanism/neoliberalism) that
automatically defers to wealthy/corporate interests, pretty much regardless.
Oh, I did it now. Probably scared you off.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)I couldn't care less about profitability as it pertains to scientific fact. Quackery should be rejected as untrue whether or not it makes money for the practicing quack.
At the same time, it is reasonable to criticize the hugely profitable "supplement" and "alternative medicine" industries because proponents of those industries eagerly criticize actual medicine for being profit-driven. Tarring with the same brush, as it were.
progressoid
(49,947 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)And he plays a fucking grand piano!
As Duke Ellington said, "If the music sounds good, it is good."
Minchin is awesome.
R&K for this response alone.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)and neither tub is big enough for two.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)What about this stuff?
Does topical salicylate cream relief DEEP joint and muscle pain, or is it just another "placebo"?
I've wondered about that.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)menthol and camphor compounds more useful tho
they maybe exaggerating their claims somewhat
dilby
(2,273 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)It seems to contain a stealthy neoliberal swipe at "dirty hippies" (bottom right panel, replete with "wild-eyed hippie" picture, esp). Just MHO.
I would like to ask TRUE EARTHLING 1 tiny question I have asked another poster.
What is your personal feeling about Milton Friedman's economic philosophy?
Mult choice----
1---Mostly agree with it (it has many good points).
2--Mostly disagree with it. (May agree with a few points, but not most).
3--Strongly agree with it (it "rocks" in most aspects).
4--Strongly disagree with it. (I think it is just wrong, in its entirety)
It is a relevant question, and should not be seen as "scary" by any honest person.
That reaction would indicate a definite "Hostility to [perceived] Criticism", which, as shown above,
honest folks need not have.
Does Milton Friedman's economic philospohy "float your boat", or not so much?
I'll answer the same question in response, if you like.
No reason to have anything to hide regarding this question (and no need to have to
write a lot, either--Just be concise).
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Declaring them evil in other, irrelvant ways is just changing the subject.
(For the record, I'll have to go with #5, because #4 is not sufficiently strongly worded for my opinion of that filth)
nikto
(3,284 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)
Your honest answer assures me that your opinion is informed by scientific perceptions,
and not an economic-political worldview.
That's all I ever intended, or was seeking.
Seems like the question is too hard for others to answer, so it is avoided, for whatever reason.
Thanks again for your straight-up answer.
That is all I was seeking.
BTW, I totally agree with you that Friedman's ideas are "filth".
I have a feeling at least some posters on this thread are Milton Friedman fans, bigtime.
But they won't admit it. Stealth works best, I guess.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)who has an extremely acerbic anti-woo piece called "Storm", which takes "alternative medicine" to task. He's the very opposite of what you think he's representing.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)So ---- Is the Medical Cannabis movement phony too?
It isn't to me.
But how do others feel about it?
Honest responses requested.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Especially since studies show it works. What would make it quackery is to claim it cures HIV or other such claims.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Now, I can be confident and certain that you are not a (politically-motivated) "quack".
Thank You!
I do not necessarily have that perception of everyone who responds on threads like this.
Most are sincere, but we've got a few deceptive neoliberal flamers on this BBS, I have come to perceive over time.
I'm just not a fan of neoliberaism, to say the least.
Glad you're not one, either.
Alkene
(752 posts)clinical data regarding the efficacy of medical cannabis has been wanting; anecdotal testimonials and personal experience have pretty much driven the "quackery" which has provided enormous relief to the ill and dying.
I wasn't really interested in waiting for scientific support or legal permission for what I already knew to be true in order to provide my wife with the relief she deserved. Fortunately I live in Washington State.
I can't really sanction the entirety of the OP.
Bonx
(2,051 posts)Haven't had a breastfeeding pit-bull in Olive Garden since I installed them.
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)Thanks for posting
nikto
(3,284 posts)The quackery is firmly embedded in the "Centrism".