I just read this article about how the NIH and Mayo Clinic have deceptively skewed and ignored years of vitamin C research. It makes me worry that I can't trust them anymore.
Here: http://www.medicalne...icles/12154.php
Posted 22 October 2009 - 04:07 PM
Posted 22 October 2009 - 04:38 PM
Edited by Blue, 22 October 2009 - 04:54 PM.
Posted 22 October 2009 - 05:24 PM
Edited by kismet, 22 October 2009 - 05:28 PM.
Posted 22 October 2009 - 06:55 PM
That's the real story, Linus Pauling was wrong all along: http://scienceblogs....s_pauling_b.php
kind regards..RESULTS: Overall, reported flu and cold symptoms in the test group decreased 85% compared with the control group after the administration of megadose Vitamin C. CONCLUSION: Vitamin C in megadoses administered before or after the appearance of cold and flu symptoms relieved and prevented the symptoms in the test population compared with the control group.
Edited by pamojja, 22 October 2009 - 07:15 PM.
Posted 23 October 2009 - 02:37 AM
A counter-question, how do we know we can trust your judgment or your source if you don't get basic facts right, like for instance with whom am I disagreeing to begin with? (addressing pubmed and mayo clinic as the same type of "insitution" is a gross category error for at least one of them)
Posted 23 October 2009 - 06:39 PM
Well, it was not exactly an ad hominem. I did not question your ability to reason, just your reasoning, i.e. your failure to use your ability to reason to arrive at a complete picture.I just saw that Pubmed was a service of NIH and associated the two - I now see how that they aren't exactly the same. Not nearly as muddled thinking, however, as casting doubt on a source because you question the intellect of someone who has linked to it (as you have just done).
Edited by kismet, 23 October 2009 - 06:39 PM.
Posted 23 October 2009 - 08:38 PM
Oh, wait Blue just presented a summary of those, didn't he? Nevertheless you can still present the conflicting evidence, but you must explain why it is to be trusted over op. cit. studies.
Paulings himself used 18 grams per day, above conflicting evidence is in fact only confirming Pauling, and opposite claims could only been made if nothing of the original work by Pauling has ever been read.NOTE: Linus Pauling specifically recommended high, generally equal
oral doses of vitamin C and the amino acid lysine between 5,000 and
6,000 mg in his Unified Theory lecture (available on video). Anything
less, by definition, is not the Linus Pauling Therapy.
Pauling Therapy Summary
Therapeutic:
Vitamin C (6,000 to 18,000 mg)
Lysine (5,000 to 6,000 mg)
Pauling Therapy Enhancements:
Proline (250 to 2,000 mg)
Coenzyme Q10 (100 to 300 mg)
Magnesium (150 to 1,500 mg)
Preventives:
Vitamin C (3,000 to 10,000 mg)
Lysine (2,000 to 4,000 mg)
Follow Pauling's other heart and cardiovascular recommendations:
Vitamin E - 800 to 3,200 IU
Vitamin A - 20,000 to 40,000 IU
Super B-Complex - 1 or 2
Daily multiple vitamin and mineral
Drink plenty of water
Additional Enhancements:
Eliminate trans fatty acids from the diet
Introduce unprocessed Omega-3 and Omega-6 oils
Eat salt, but only unrefined salt
Reduce manganese intake
Eliminate ordinary sugar and refined carbohydrates
Supplement with vitamin K
Avoid supplemental calcium
Supplement with the amino acids taurine, arginine and
carnitine (1 to 3 grams)
Supplement with vitamin D3 (2,000 IU), especially in
the winter months
Supplement with melatonin (3 to 6 mg) before bedtime
Edited by pamojja, 23 October 2009 - 08:41 PM.
Posted 24 October 2009 - 04:50 AM
Well, it was not exactly an ad hominem. I did not question your ability to reason, just your reasoning, i.e. your failure to use your ability to reason to arrive at a complete picture.I just saw that Pubmed was a service of NIH and associated the two - I now see how that they aren't exactly the same. Not nearly as muddled thinking, however, as casting doubt on a source because you question the intellect of someone who has linked to it (as you have just done).
I did not try to question the credibility of your source, because it goes without saying that the site lacks credibility. It is a non-peer reviewed, secondary source on the interweb. I'm waiting for primary sources to back those lofty claims. Oh, wait Blue just presented a summary of those, didn't he? Nevertheless you can still present the conflicting evidence, but you must explain why it is to be trusted over op. cit. studies.
Posted 24 October 2009 - 04:53 AM
For me it seems to work with much less E, the least possible A (with the multi; due to decreased absorption of D3 if taken together as suggested in newer findings). And don't use any melatonin.
Posted 24 October 2009 - 10:04 AM
Just didn't see any reason for adding it yet. I've been overly conscious of possible bad effects of any person in 'white' or any pill due to very bad experiences from my birth onward. Being confronted with my debilitating condition and having to do something about I started with very low doses of what Pauling recommends and thereby also delayed my improvement for months. 3, 6 grams of vitamin C a day just didn't do anything in my case..Are you saying "don't use any melatonin" in the imperative sense, or that you personally don't use it? Taking that much would make me groggy - I take about .75 mg, occasionally; I haven't found any reason not to.
Edited by pamojja, 24 October 2009 - 10:13 AM.
Posted 24 October 2009 - 10:11 AM
However, I also go an extra mile to get as much as possible vitamin, specially A, trough nutrition,For me it seems to work with much less E, the least possible A ...
Posted 24 October 2009 - 02:32 PM
Edited by kismet, 24 October 2009 - 02:39 PM.
Posted 24 October 2009 - 05:06 PM
Both links given were with 500mg vit C and therefore don't to justice to Pauling's recommended doses of at least 3000 mg again (and that only for prevention) - but I already know that for some reason you'll continue your mission of discrediting anything related to high dosage Orthomolecular medicine with studies missing the point.http://jama.ama-assn...REF-JOC80129-20
http://jama.ama-assn...pe2=tf_ipsecsha
If you google for Linus Pauling or look for the Linus Pauling entry at wikipedia you can find his original works.Paulings himself used 18 grams per day, above conflicting evidence is in fact only confirming Pauling, and opposite claims could only been made if nothing of the original work by Pauling has ever been read.
Where are the primary references?
Every substance entering the human body meets a gazilion of other variables. However, all I changed out of healthy skepticism was gradually increasing all prescribed ingredients from time to time. And leaving a single one out which isn't one of the essentials. That's not 'gazilions' but does justice to the different variables encountered in every body.How come you know the vitamin C is doing anything if you change a gazillion other variables in the Pauling regimen?
Edited by pamojja, 24 October 2009 - 05:08 PM.
Posted 24 October 2009 - 06:11 PM
It's not a good idea to start a post with a baseless assertion like that, but if you really think that is my mission than why did you not provide any primary sources yourself to prove me wrong? (see below)Both links given were with 500mg vit C and therefore don't to justice to Pauling's recommended doses of at least 3000 mg again (and that only for prevention) - but I already know that for some reason you'll continue your mission of discrediting anything related to high dosage Orthomolecular medicine with studies missing the point.
Well, I at least did go to the trouble of posting primary sources (and/or meta-analyses thereof). As always extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which you should provide if a. you're interested in meaningful dialogue (which requires both parties to do some work, not just me) and b. if you go against well-established and -backend consensus. I thought that's clear.If you google for Linus Pauling or look for the Linus Pauling entry at wikipedia you can find his original works.
I did miss one issue when I described what you (think you've) witnessed. Placebo, confirmation bias, post hoc and, we shouldn't forget the good old, regression to the mean. So what did you do to minimise those cognitive biases and issues other than titrating every substance on its own? How long did you wait between increasing each dose, how did you start out, in which order did you add the substances and why? How did you assess the improvements or lack thereof, i.e. which blood or functional tests did you do?Every substance entering the human body meets a gazilion of other variables. However, all I changed out of healthy skepticism was gradually increasing all prescribed ingredients from time to time. And leaving a single one out which isn't one of the essentials. That's not 'gazilions' but does justice to the different variables encountered in every body.
Why are those the essentials, is there any evidence to that effect? And how do you personally know it's not the D, the K, the lysine, the improved diet, exercise or another variable? Is your answer "IDK, I'm just guessing" or am I misinterpreting what you just said?The essential with Pauling remain vitamin C an l-Lysin. Though I don't agree in this, since I consider many of his 'therapy enhancements' just as effective against plaque; like D3 and K2.
Not that I put much trust into evolutionary speculation but an interesting question comes to mind: why do you think your body needs more vitamin C than it can naturally tolerate or even any values in the viccinity of bowel tolerance? (IAC "need" is the wrong word, because diet cannot provide those amounts, so no one ever got that much vitamin C. Maybe you mean "therapeutic need")However, only by titrating to my bowel tolerance of vitamin C I got a more accurate picture of my bodies actual need, and therefore could dose more appropriate to that. Which, should be needless to say, is different for everyone.
Edited by kismet, 24 October 2009 - 06:15 PM.
Posted 24 October 2009 - 07:37 PM
I believe you're on your mission because of what you wrote, or rather not wrote to substantiate your outrageous claims in this thread:It's not a good idea to start a post with a baseless assertion like that, but if you really think that is my mission than why did you not provide any primary sources yourself to prove me wrong?.. - but I already know that for some reason you'll continue your mission of discrediting anything related to high dosage Orthomolecular medicine with studies missing the point.
I didn't do a scientific study and I never gave that impression. I just said someone with serious arteriosclerosis might miss real improvement if he wouldn't do his own thinking and follow your suggestions (of the other thread) that vitamins are harmful and useless, or (in this thread) that Pauling would have been wrong all along without anything substantial in support of your claims.I did miss one issue when I described what you (think you've) witnessed. Placebo, confirmation bias, post hoc and, we shouldn't forget the good old, regression to the mean. So what did you do to minimise those cognitive biases and issues other than titrating every substance on its own?Every substance entering the human body meets a gazilion of other variables. However, all I changed out of healthy skepticism was gradually increasing all prescribed ingredients from time to time. And leaving a single one out which isn't one of the essentials. That's not 'gazilions' but does justice to the different variables encountered in every body.
lol, you should first follow your own consensus. Why you simply went quiet in the other thread?Well, I at least did go to the trouble of posting primary sources (and/or meta-analyses thereof). As always extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which you should provide if a. you're interested in meaningful dialogue (which requires both parties to do some work, not just me) and b. if you go against well-established and -backend consensus. I thought that's clear.If you google for Linus Pauling or look for the Linus Pauling entry at wikipedia you can find his original works.
Please read again. I wrote I increased all ingredients gradially and only in respect to vitamin C I talked about titrating.... issues other than titrating every substance on its own?
Why are those the essentials, is there any evidence to that effect? And how do you personally know it's not the D, the K, the lysine, the improved diet, exercise or another variable? Is your answer "IDK, I'm just guessing" or am I misinterpreting what you just said?The essential with Pauling remain vitamin C an l-Lysin. Though I don't agree in this, since I consider many of his 'therapy enhancements' just as effective against plaque; like D3 and K2.
I'm using 'Paulings Therapy' for a PAD. So I thought this would be clear.Maybe you mean "therapeutic need")
Posted 25 October 2009 - 04:30 PM
Posted 25 October 2009 - 05:46 PM
No, I do not, because those are the best, actually the only good studies we have. If the best we have sucks it is still the best we have and we need to base our choices on existing evidence not speculation. Just because those studies have short-comings does not mean Pauling is necessarily right. His studies are small and methodologically flawed and no one bothered to dig them up so we could discuss them (which I'm still willing to do). While preclinical work clearly shows that only i.v. doses can reach cytotoxic concentrations in vivo and other mechanisms of cancer prevention are even more obscure ("how does vit C work?")Bickering aside, the two studies you linked to were in fact 500 mg studies. Don't you see that this has nothing to do with my original inquiry? I already stated such in regard to Blue's post when he pasted his 500 mg studies. The article was about how NIH and MayoClinic have acted just plainly stupid by, among many things, pretending to discredit high dose effects using low dose trials - ignoring the whole distinction that was previously made.
You provided *secondary* sources which were biased, because awfully conflicted, like LEF or some other non-peer reviewed work on the internetz. I requested and still request scholarly primary sources. IAC I did go through the presented arguments in my mind, but did not yet write back, because the topic has been discussed to death on this forum; but I've also stated clearly that ("I give up now but...") I will write back to explain some of the claims and criticism if I have enough time (or motivation).I believe you're on your mission because of what you wrote, or rather not wrote to substantiate your outrageous claims in this thread:
http://www.imminst.o...ing-t33604.html
While I did give sources to show how wrong your claims where, it was you who just left the discussion with: 'I give up now. Maybe I'll dedicate to your *** more when I find some time-.. (where the *** was censored by a moderator)
There is no need to prove you wrong if the studies you post in support of your views don't support you.
Please don't claim I said something which I clearly didn't. I never said "[supplemental] vitamins are useless or harmful". I said most are and later went on to explain it in more detail; in particular multvitamins, in particular megadoses of vitamin E or A and some others, but there are exceptions (and I gave at least five examples).I didn't do a scientific study and I never gave that impression. I just said someone with serious arteriosclerosis might miss real improvement if he wouldn't do his own thinking and follow your suggestions (of the other thread) that vitamins are harmful and useless, or (in this thread) that Pauling would have been wrong all along without anything substantial in support of your claims.
See above.lol, you should first follow your own consensus. Why you simply went quiet in the other thread?
Please let's not play the "I don't need to prove anything" game. This thread is about Pauling and vitamin C. The question whether Pauling was right is central to this thread; either you (we) address the issue or we're just talking off-topic or not having any discussion. I'd sincerely want to discuss his studies, but it is only possible if you (or other proponents) provide primary sources and explain your reasoning and address Blue's and my criticism. I've already explained why I believe the sources I posted, the 500mg studies and ORAC's blog post discussing the preclinical evidence and Pauling's outrageaus claims (or lies), are important. The preclinical evidence is pretty clear-cut on high doses as are RCTs on moderate doses (500mg).Again, I'm not responding to this thread to prove anything in regard to Pauling. I just make the point how claims that it would be fact 'that Pauling was wrong all along' might make one miss its benefits. And how there isn't anything in support of this alleged 'fact'.
Edited by kismet, 25 October 2009 - 11:33 PM.
Posted 26 October 2009 - 02:41 PM
I thinks the best in term of treatment is still the one I gave in the 4th post of this thread because it seems till now the only one using vitamin C doses coming close to what Pauling acctually recomments: 6 grams on the first day of the onset of a flu and 3 grams thereafter on the following days. Where te flu symtoms in the test group decreased 85% compared to the test group!No, I do not, because those are the best, actually the only good studies we have.Bickering aside, the two studies you linked to were in fact 500 mg studies. Don't you see that this has nothing to do with my original inquiry?
... nor intentionally ignoring studies going against your views ;-)If the best we have sucks it is still the best we have and we need to base our choices on existing evidence not speculation.
Likewise, just because there haven't been double-blind studies to test Pauling's claims doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong.Just because those studies have short-comings does not mean Pauling is necessarily right.
For which you loose not even one word, because you have already made up you're mind whom to trust (dispite not being able to give any evidence in support of your view):My inquiry was not about the efficacy of vit. c megadosing per se, but whether these organizations make trustworthy statements and recommendations.
That's the real story, Linus Pauling was wrong all along: http://scienceblogs....s_pauling_b.php
Posted 26 October 2009 - 02:49 PM
I believe you're on your mission because of what you wrote, or rather not wrote to substantiate your outrageous claims in this thread:
http://www.imminst.o...ing-t33604.html
While I did give sources to show how wrong your claims where, it was you who just left the discussion with: 'I give up now. Maybe I'll dedicate to your *** more when I find some time..
What's the difference when you're only able to link to a blog entry of someone named Orac (which begins with relating how his mother-in-law passed away from breast cancer) as the only reference in this thread etc.?You provided *secondary* sources which were biased, because awfully conflicted, like LEF or some other non-peer reviewed work on the internetz.
Please provide what you're expecting from others first.I requested and still request scholarly primary sources.
Though 868 views of this other thread till now isn't exactly 2-5 people..IAC I did go through the presented arguments in my mind, but did not yet write back, because the topic has been discussed to death on this forum; but I've also stated clearly that ("I give up now but...") I will write back to explain some of the claims and criticism if I have enough time (or motivation).
Furthermore, I do not see any reason why you cannot repeat what you said on the German forum here (not necessarily in this thread, although we can have it split), as I generally prefer to discuss on the general forums which are accessible to a wider audience (another reason why I didn't want to waste too much time explaining that stuff on the German forum, with a target audience between 2-5 people).
Again, if you abided to your own standard you would be much more credible.Furthermore, most of the time no one even provided a concise or coherent summary of your secondary sources (at least on the second page someone posted bullet points). I refuse to waste time on reading secondary sources of unkown quality if people are not even willing to provide a short and coherent summary of the key points in their own words (that's why "read wikipedia or read XY" won't get us very far).
Posted 26 October 2009 - 02:58 PM
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 27, 2007
23 YEARS OF DOCUMENTED VITAMIN SAFETY
(OMNS, Feb 27, 2007) Over a twenty-three year period, vitamins have been connected with the deaths of a total of ten people in the United States. Poison control statistics confirm that more Americans die each year from eating soap than from taking vitamins.
Where are the bodies?
A 23-year review of US poison control center annual reports (1) tells a remarkable and largely ignored story: vitamins are extraordinarily safe.
Annual deaths alleged from vitamins:
2005: zero
2004: two
2003: two
2002: one
2001: zero
2000: zero
1999: zero
1998: zero
1997: zero
1996: zero
1995: zero
1994: zero
1993: one
1992: zero
1991: two
1990: one
1989: zero
1988: zero
1987: one
1986: zero
1985: zero
1984: zero
1983: zero
The zeros are not due to a lack of reporting. The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), which maintains the USA’s national database of information from 61 poison control centers, has noted that vitamins are among the 16 most reported substances. Even including intentional and accidental misuse, the number of alleged vitamin fatalities is strikingly low, averaging less than one death per year for more than two decades. In 16 of those 23 years, AAPCC reports that there was not one single death due to vitamins.
These statistics specifically include vitamin A, niacin (B-3), pyridoxine (B-6), other B-complex, C, D, E, "other" vitamin(s), such as vitamin K, and multiple vitamins without iron. Minerals, which are chemically and nutritionally different from vitamins, have an excellent safety record as well, but not quite as good as vitamins. On the average, one or two fatalities per year are typically attributed to iron poisoning from gross overdosing on supplemental iron. Deaths attributed to other supplemental minerals are very rare. Even iron, although not as safe as vitamins, accounts for fewer deaths than do laundry and dishwashing detergents.
http://orthomolecula...mns/index.shtml
Number - % of all exposures in category - Substance 377 - 0.250 - Sedative/hypnotics/antipsychotics 331 - 0.990 - Opioids 220 - 0.250 - Antidepressants 208 - 0.270 - Acetaminophen in combination 203 - 0.240 - Cardiovascular drugs 188 - 0.410 - Stimulants and street drugs 170 - 0.230 - Alcohols 140 - 0.190 - Acetaminophen only 99 - 0.230 - Anticonvulsants 80 - 0.200 - Fumes/gases/vapors 80 - 0.740 - Cyclic antidepressants 70 - 0.270 - Muscle relaxants 69 - 0.090 - Antihistamines 63 - 0.350 - Aspirin alone 45 - 0.120 - Chemicals 44 - 0.230 - Unknown drug 44 - 0.040 - Other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs 36 - 0.280 - Oral hypoglycemics 28 - 0.200 - Automotive/aircraft/boat products 21 - 0.080 - Miscellaneous drugs 21 - 0.040 - Antihistamine/decongestant, without phenylpropanolamine 20 - 0.050 - Hormones and hormone antagonists 20 - 0.300 - Anticoagulants 16 - 0.150 - Diuretics
Conclusion
In today's Western world, a large percentage of the population fails to ingest optimal potencies of many essential nutrients. As you will read in part two of this report, a shocking majority (93-96%) of people who don't supplement with vitamin E are deficient in vitamin E.
This negative report attacking supplements is fatally flawed because it:
* Omitted 91% of the studies that measured the effects of these vitamins on human subjects including all studies for which there was no mortality!
* Included studies that used doses far below or far above what health conscious people actually supplement with.
* Chose to bias the reporting of the results by emphasizing one type of statistical model that showed a significant effect rather than another statistical model that did not show a significant effect.
* Failed to account for the 14 mechanisms involved in aging and premature death. For example, it is absurd to think that taking 1,333 IU to 200,000 IU of vitamin A is going to have meaningful impact when there are more than one hundred individual components to a science-based death reduction program.
The final shocker is that this meta-analysis report attacking vitamin A, beta-carotene and vitamin E is not new. It was in fact published last year and drew a lot of criticism for the obvious flaws it contains. Perhaps the reason this story was quickly removed from media websites on the day it appeared is that the broadcasters realized they were not relaying 'news', but instead regurgitating anti-supplement propaganda.
Needless to say, even this brief exposure was a public relations score for pharmaceutical interests, as millions of people worldwide may be frightened away from supplements that could reduce their future need for expensive prescription drugs.
(transl. from German)
1. Already the selection of the initial material shows tendencies ...
2. .. and culminates in that the most test persons where already sick to begin with (and therefore would show a higher mortality rate).
3. It wasn't explicitly asked for vitamin E intake and related mortality, but for total mortality (inclusive murder, accitant deaths)
4. The comparison wasn't between the usual dosage recommentation (ca. 10 IU, according to DGE) and the higher modern recommentation (400 IU) - but the highter recommendation (400 IU) with thereapeutic doses (upto 2000 IU).
5. In spite of all these preparations it still didn't showed definite negativ results with higher vitamin E intake (above 400 IU.) This representation only succeeded after all study results have been recalculated 'fitting' with a special formula developed specially by Miller et al (quadratic-linear dose response).
5. Despite all manipulations merely a higher risk of 0.5 % could be described for dosages above 400 IU - but who is taking that much?
Not even the special formula by Miller was able to give definite negativ results for supplements upto 400 IU. If the data of the original studies would be taken, than no definite negativ effects show even for doses upto 2000 IU. This whole analysis isn't worth the paper.
Professor Balz Frei, Linus Pauling Institut Oregon State University
The "meta-analysis" published in JAMA, which is a statistical analysis of previously published data, looked at 815 antioxidant trials but included only 68 of them in its analysis, and two of the studies excluded – which were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the prominent British medical journal Lancet – found substantial benefits and reduced mortality from intake of antioxidant supplements.
If these two large studies had been included, none of the reported effects on increased mortality would have been significant, with the exception of the effects of beta carotene. And the research showing a higher incidence of lung cancer in smokers who take supplements of beta carotene or vitamin A is old news, that's been known for many years. Very high doses of vitamin A are known to have multiple adverse health effects
Posted 26 October 2009 - 03:52 PM
If these two large studies had been included, none of the reported effects on increased mortality would have been significant, with the exception of the effects of beta carotene. And the research showing a higher incidence of lung cancer in smokers who take supplements of beta carotene or vitamin A is old news, that's been known for many years. Very high doses of vitamin A are known to have multiple adverse health effects
(freely translated from the German thread)
If we look at the world-famous ATBC-study, which showed that beta-carotene raises the risk of lung cancer, this is how it looks:
http://annonc.oxford...2/185/MDH051TB2
Treatment: 14 560 patients
Placebo: 14 573 patients
No. of lung cancers
Treatment: 474
Placebo: 402
The relative difference in this case is 18%, but the absolute is smaller than 1%
.. an other example:
Heart Protection Study of antioxidant vitamin supplementation
20536 patients
All-cause mortality (1446 [14.1%] vitamin-allocated vs 1389 [13.5%] placebo-allocated (absolute)
Conclusion: No significant differences
Later you find this result in the already mentioned Cochrane- analysis calculated.
And here they talk about a '4% higher mortality within the vitamin group'
by taking the relative and not absolute difference between 1446 and 1389 they arrived at 4%
Posted 27 October 2009 - 10:42 PM
Edited by Elus Efelier, 27 October 2009 - 10:44 PM.
Posted 30 October 2009 - 02:36 PM
Some more about Mayo Clinic trials of vitamin C against cancer and Pauling:As for credibility, the site doesn't present the results of some independent study but explains how the NIH and Mayo Clinic responded to studies (i.e. refusing to answer inquiries about the obvious error in the NIH study of measuring blood levels after the body was given time to excrete vitamin C). I'm not sure if you've read it, since as pamojja pointed out, the studies Blue presented have nothing to do with the author's claims; the usage of low dose experiments to supposedly refute high dose effects was in fact one of the topics she touched on.
Her presentation of events is certainly not infallible or exempt from investigation, but it definitely arouses my suspicion.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users