Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook 

Dr. Stella Immanuel making Dr. Vaughn and Dr. Brown's proud ..
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Dr. Stella Immanuel making Dr. Vaughn and Dr. Brown's proud .. Rafael D Martinez
Hey if Madonna and the President can agree on the cutting edge spiritual science here, then we may finally be on to something. Drs. Shane Vaughn and Rebecca Brown just have to have big lumps in their throats.

Maybe those Christmas minister's banquets can happen yet!

Well - GLO RAY - get those hankies out, leave them up front and get her on the Kanye roadshow! Fox News will get her a livestream yet ..


https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/29/madonna-instagram-covid-coronavirus-stella-immanuel-bathtub/


_________________
www.spiritwatch.org

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

These are trying times. Everyone's trying something and getting caught. The Church Lady, 1987
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7732
7/31/20 11:24 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Brother, your visit here today is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for the reminder that there are at least some believers who have not completely lost their minds. Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 13482
7/31/20 11:52 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post enjoy while you can Rafael D Martinez
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Brother, your visit here today is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for the reminder that there are at least some believers who have not completely lost their minds.


It won't be a habit for that reason.

Thanks.
_________________
www.spiritwatch.org

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

These are trying times. Everyone's trying something and getting caught. The Church Lady, 1987
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7732
7/31/20 12:07 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: enjoy while you can Dave Dorsey
Rafael D Martinez wrote:
It won't be a habit for that reason.

100% can't blame you.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 13482
7/31/20 12:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post The medical science is correct. Aaron Scott
In Newsweek, a Yale professor of epidemiology argued that hydro... is indeed a very good treatment (in the early states) of COVID-19.

I'm not someone who doesn't wear a mask or think there's some sort of takeover going on, but I do believe that because Trump said it, it is not getting the play it should get.

When we are up against all of this, why in the world would we have to wait for all kinds of studies when we have on-the-ground evidence that it is effective. If we had time to spare, fine, wait for all the double-blind tests. Otherwise, put the fire out with what is at hand.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5527
7/31/20 1:28 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: The medical science is correct. Rafael D Martinez
Aaron Scott wrote:
In Newsweek, a Yale professor of epidemiology argued that hydro... is indeed a very good treatment (in the early states) of COVID-19.

I'm not someone who doesn't wear a mask or think there's some sort of takeover going on, but I do believe that because Trump said it, it is not getting the play it should get.

When we are up against all of this, why in the world would we have to wait for all kinds of studies when we have on-the-ground evidence that it is effective. If we had time to spare, fine, wait for all the double-blind tests. Otherwise, put the fire out with what is at hand.


https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

Yes, the medical science is correct. Depends on whose science you want to believe.
_________________
www.spiritwatch.org

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

These are trying times. Everyone's trying something and getting caught. The Church Lady, 1987
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7732
7/31/20 2:36 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
There have been randomized double-blind trials showing that HCQ is not effective, and zero randomized double-blind trials showing that it is.

All I read on Facebook is "this study that wasn't peer reviewed proves it's the cure!" and "you have to combine it with drugs X and Y for it to work!"

Okay, fine. If that's the case, do a double-blind RCT and prove it. Otherwise HCQ remains unproven, period, ESPECIALLY outside of a hospital setting.

You can't just "put a fire out" with a random medicine -- that's complete lunacy. You cannot risk harming patients because you and the president think something MIGHT work (especially when we have double-blind RCTs indicating that it doesn't).
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 13482
7/31/20 3:15 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Here's the link you all need to read... Aaron Scott
https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

Or just read the cut and paste below....


The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion
HARVEY A. RISCH, MD, PHD , PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, YALE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.

I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.

Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.

Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.

My original article in the AJE is available free online, and I encourage readers—especially physicians, nurses, physician assistants and associates, and respiratory therapists—to search the title and read it. My follow-up letter is linked there to the original paper.

Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been "natural experiments." In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak.

A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients.

Why has hydroxychloroquine been disregarded?

First, as all know, the medication has become highly politicized. For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum. Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed. We must judge this medication strictly on the science. When doctors graduate from medical school, they formally promise to make the health and life of the patient their first consideration, without biases of race, religion, nationality, social standing—or political affiliation. Lives must come first.

Second, the drug has not been used properly in many studies. Hydroxychloroquine has shown major success when used early in high-risk people but, as one would expect for an antiviral, much less success when used late in the disease course. Even so, it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan and New York City when started within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission.


In fact, as inexpensive, oral and widely available medications, and a nutritional supplement, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc are well-suited for early treatment in the outpatient setting. The combination should be prescribed in high-risk patients immediately upon clinical suspicion of COVID-19 disease, without waiting for results of testing. Delays in waiting before starting the medications can reduce their efficacy.

Third, concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, especially when hydroxychloroquine is given in combination with azithromycin. The FDA based its comments on data in its FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. This reporting system captured up to a thousand cases of arrhythmias attributed to hydroxychloroquine use. In fact, the number is likely higher than that, since the reporting system, which requires physicians or patients to initiate contact with the FDA, appreciably undercounts drug side effects.

But what the FDA did not announce is that these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. Even if the true rates of arrhythmia are ten-fold higher than those reported, the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients. This fact is proven by an Oxford University study of more than 320,000 older patients taking both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, who had arrhythmia excess death rates of less than 9/100,000 users, as I discuss in my May 27 paper cited above. A new paper in the American Journal of Medicine by established cardiologists around the world fully agrees with this.


In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points. For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity, especially those disproportionally affected, we must start treating immediately.

Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, is professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5527
7/31/20 3:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dave, don't you get it? Aaron Scott
Dave Dorsey wrote:
There have been randomized double-blind trials showing that HCQ is not effective, and zero randomized double-blind trials showing that it is.

All I read on Facebook is "this study that wasn't peer reviewed proves it's the cure!" and "you have to combine it with drugs X and Y for it to work!"

Okay, fine. If that's the case, do a double-blind RCT and prove it. Otherwise HCQ remains unproven, period, ESPECIALLY outside of a hospital setting.

You can't just "put a fire out" with a random medicine -- that's complete lunacy. You cannot risk harming patients because you and the president think something MIGHT work (especially when we have double-blind RCTs indicating that it doesn't).



When you're in an emergency, you work with what's working, not just wait until something has been proven to work.

In the case of a fire, someone had to figure out that flour will smother a fire. There was no waiting for a double-blind study or the such--it was used, and it worked.

Now, either there are people LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that it's a worthwhile drug...or there are people who are unwilling to even try it until it, apparently, has FDA approval for treating COVID-19.

Wish we had time to wait. If you catch it, perhaps you'll be good with waiting. Me? Give me the hyrdo-stuff. I'll risk it.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5527
7/31/20 4:02 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
I find it funny that some are complaining that the FDA doesn’t recommend a drug for a fake virus. Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16459
7/31/20 4:33 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post That .. Rafael D Martinez
Eddie Robbins wrote:
I find it funny that some are complaining that the FDA doesn’t recommend a drug for a fake virus.


.. is funny right there.
_________________
www.spiritwatch.org

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

These are trying times. Everyone's trying something and getting caught. The Church Lady, 1987
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7732
8/1/20 1:58 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Dave, don't you get it? shaunbwilson
Aaron Scott wrote:
When we are up against all of this, why in the world would we have to wait for all kinds of studies when we have on-the-ground evidence that it is effective. . . .

. . .Now, either there are people LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that it's a worthwhile drug...or there are people who are unwilling to even try it until it, apparently, has FDA approval for treating COVID-19. . . .

. . .Wish we had time to wait.


The 350+ doctors who have said the drug is worthwhile are reporting anecdotal observational studies, and some have even admitted that their anecdotal observations are both statistically insignificant and include those who never tested positive for COVID-19.[1] Observational studies are useful in circumstances in which it would be impractical or unethical to do a randomized controlled study or as a starting place to present a hypothesis that can be studied using the scientific method in a randomized controlled study. However, "observational studies cannot be used to make definitive statements of fact about the 'safety, efficacy, or effectiveness' of a practice."[2]

I have not seen anyone suggest that we wait for FDA approval before using this drug. In fact, this is not likely to happen since the FDA has already revoked Emergency Use Authorization for the use of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 because "of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other serious side effects, [making] the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use."[3]

We have had time to do double-blind randomized controlled trials that show HCQ is ineffective.[4][5] If RCTs have had enough time to show that HCQ is ineffective, what additional time do you believe is needed to prove that it does work? If so many doctors have found it to be so effective, why have they not started a double-blind randomized controlled trial while also continuing to treat their patients with HCQ? Why are the manufacturers of HCQ not demanding these RCTs be done?
_________________
Signature Themes: Connectedness | Futuristic | Ideation | Intellection | Learner
Site Admin
Posts: 3112
8/1/20 11:28 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Shaun... Aaron Scott
shaunbwilson wrote:
Aaron Scott wrote:
Now, either there are people LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that it's a worthwhile drug...or there are people who are unwilling to even try it until it, apparently, has FDA approval for treating COVID-19. . . .

. . .Wish we had time to wait.


The 350+ doctors who have said the drug is worthwhile are reporting anecdotal observational studies, and some have even admitted that their anecdotal observations are both statistically insignificant and include those who never tested positive for COVID-19.[1] Observational studies are useful in circumstances in which it would be impractical or unethical to do a randomized controlled study or as a starting place to present a hypothesis that can be studied in a randomized controlled study. However, "observational studies cannot be used to make definitive statements of fact about the 'safety, efficacy, or effectiveness' of a practice."[2]

I have not seen anyone suggest that we wait for FDA approval before using this drug. In fact, this is not likely to happen since the FDA has already revoked Emergency Use Authorization for the use of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 because "of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other serious side effects, [making] the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use."[3]

We have had time to do double-blind randomized controlled trials that show HCQ is ineffective.[4][5] If RCTs have had enough time to show that HCQ is ineffective, what additional time do you believe is needed to prove that it does work? If so many doctors have found it to be so effective, why have they not started a double-blind randomized controlled trial while also continuing to treat their patients with HCQ? Why are the manufacturers of HCQ not demanding these RCTs be done?


Shaun,

The article clearly shows that the medication is effective. Why have they not done all the studies? I'm going to go with the fact that Trump promoted the drug, therefore it cannot possibly be effective.

As the article says, that's not the way to do science.

Here's the thing: double-blind study or not, there is overwhelming evidence that it works if used early on high-risk patients. If only half of them actually had COVID-19, that's still an incredible bit of evidence.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5527
8/1/20 11:38 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Shaun... shaunbwilson
Aaron Scott wrote:
The article clearly shows that the medication is effective. . . .

. . .As the article says, that's not the way to do science.


When you say "the article," do you mean the opinion piece by the Yale doctor? When you say the article says "that's not the way to do science," to which quote are you referring?

Aaron Scott wrote:
Why have they not done all the studies? I'm going to go with the fact that Trump promoted the drug, therefore it cannot possibly be effective.


Your assertion is that HCQ manufacturers are leaving profits on the table to spite Trump?

Aaron Scott wrote:
Here's the thing: double-blind study or not, there is overwhelming evidence that it works if used early on high-risk patients. If only half of them actually had COVID-19, that's still an incredible bit of evidence.


There is an overwhelming amount of anecdotes. There is not overwhelming evidence. Respectfully, evidence has a specific meaning in this case, and this is not it.
_________________
Signature Themes: Connectedness | Futuristic | Ideation | Intellection | Learner
Site Admin
Posts: 3112
8/1/20 11:48 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Shaun... Aaron Scott
It is as much of an "opinion piece" as Dr. Fauci saying people should avoid crowds. This is a highly respected epidemiologist, not just someone spouting off. And he shows the evidence he has seen.

Why would we think that is just an opinion? Its not a study, true; but its not just a general opinion either.

Wait...did you vote for Trump? And do you plan to vote for Trump? Full disclosure: I did, and I plan to.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5527
8/1/20 12:18 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Shaun... shaunbwilson
Aaron Scott wrote:
Why would we think that is just an opinion?


Um... that's what the article you pasted calls it.

Aaron Scott wrote:
The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion


Aaron Scott wrote:
Wait...did you vote for Trump? And do you plan to vote for Trump? Full disclosure: I did, and I plan to.


I'm not sure what my voting record has to do with the scientific method, which was developed long before Trump or I were born.

Will look forward to hearing more about your answers to the questions that have not yet been answered from either of my posts when you have a chance. Still hoping to hear:
  • If RCTs have had enough time to show that HCQ is ineffective, what additional time do you believe is needed to prove [in an RCT] that it does work?
  • If so many doctors have found it to be so effective, why have they not started a double-blind randomized controlled trial while also continuing to treat their patients with HCQ? [(Is this because the doctors also do not want Trump to be proven correct?)]
  • When you say the article says "that's not the way to do science," to which quote are you referring?
  • Your assertion is that HCQ manufacturers are leaving profits on the table to spite Trump?

_________________
Signature Themes: Connectedness | Futuristic | Ideation | Intellection | Learner
Site Admin
Posts: 3112
8/1/20 12:37 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Shaun... Aaron Scott
shaunbwilson wrote:
Aaron Scott wrote:
Why would we think that is just an opinion?


Um... that's what the article you pasted calls it.


Shaun, did you note that he was referencing an article he had written in the American Journal of Epidemiology? That is, he was referring to a medical journal article. That's like saying that it's an opinion to reference a scientific article, and is only science if it IS the article. However, agreed, Newsweek has it as "Opinion." But just know that's really not.

Aaron Scott wrote:
The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion


Aaron Scott wrote:
Wait...did you vote for Trump? And do you plan to vote for Trump? Full disclosure: I did, and I plan to.


I'm not sure what my voting record has to do with the scientific method, which was developed long before Trump or I were born.

Because as the article says, there is a lot of politics affecting matters. If you are against Trump, you might have a vested interest in not wanting him to be right. Not saying that's you...but if you are, as I suspect, a communist leftist liberal snowflake anti-Confederacy Antifa member (SMILE), you might not accept anything Trump says.


Will look forward to hearing more about your answers to the questions that have not yet been answered from either of my posts when you have a chance. Still hoping to hear:
  • If RCTs have had enough time to show that HCQ is ineffective, what additional time do you believe is needed to prove [in an RCT] that it does work?

    That's just it: They did NOT show it was ineffective in early treatment of high-risk patients. To show that it is not working it late-stage COVID-19 is to say that a wet towel won't put out a skillet fire after it has caught the rest of the house on fire.



  • If so many doctors have found it to be so effective, why have they not started a double-blind randomized controlled trial while also continuing to treat their patients with HCQ? [(Is this because the doctors also do not want Trump to be proven correct?)]

    I don't know. Maybe they have started one. That doesn't negate the author's point.


  • When you say the article says "that's not the way to do science," to which quote are you referring?

    Sorry, the actual quote is: "Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed."



  • Your assertion is that HCQ manufacturers are leaving profits on the table to spite Trump?

    I don't know the answer to that either. I don't know why news organizations would care to tick off so many pro-Trump voters. They do, though. That loses them viewers, I'm sure, that they might otherwise have.







Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5527
8/1/20 1:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Aaron, your suggestion that the validity of the arguments Shaun is making depends on who he voted for is absolutely pathetic.

Political ideology is not a part of the scientific method. As a teacher, you should be utterly ashamed of the fallacious way you have responded to Shaun's arguments.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 13482
8/1/20 2:24 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave.... Aaron Scott
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Aaron, your suggestion that the validity of the arguments Shaun is making depends on who he voted for is absolutely pathetic.

Political ideology is not a part of the scientific method. As a teacher, you should be utterly ashamed of the fallacious way you have responded to Shaun's arguments.




I was saying that because I find that there is a very strong correlation between believing President Trump or not, based on your political leanings. I could not fathom why there would be push-back on an article that is CLEARLY one that should be quite persuasive, seeing as this is not just someone in the grocery store parking lot ranting about hyrdro-stuff. THAT is why I even mentioned it, since those who blindly follow Trump are as bad as those who blindly reject him. Some people believe what Trump says, even if it's stupid...and some people reject what he says even if what he says is right.

I didn't say he was wrong because he might not have voted for Trump--nor that I was right because I did. I simply was checking...since there IS a correlation, it appears, in how one sees Trump.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5527
8/1/20 3:30 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
I am sure you are correct that people make their thinking subservient to their political views. In fact, I think I have encountered this very recently.

However, Shaun has done nothing but give you logic and evidence. It is fallacious, embarrassing, and uncalled for to attempt to project that onto him rather than answering him with logic and evidence in return. It makes it look like you do not have any logic or evidence to respond with.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 13482
8/1/20 3:49 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.