mercredi, janvier 28, 2009

High Fructose Corn Syrup Contaminated with Toxic Mercury

High Fructose Corn Syrup Contaminated with Toxic Mercury, Says Research (opinion)
by Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) New research published in Environmental Health and conducted in part by a scientist at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has revealed that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is contaminated with the toxic heavy metal mercury.

That means that many of the products using HFCS may also be contaminated with mercury. Carbonated sodas are sweetened with HFCS, as are candy bars, bread, salad dressings, pizza sauce, fruit drinks and thousands of other grocery items.

Mercury is so highly toxic that it causes severe neurological disorders. It can also result in the loss of hair, teeth and nails as well as muscle weakness, loss of kidney function, emotional mood swings and memory impairment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercur...) (P.S. Somebody please update this Wikipedia page with this latest research about HFCS being a source for mercury exposure, too.)

The highest level of contamination found in the study (http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2) was 0.57 micrograms of mercury per gram of HFCS. The EPA says that an average-sized woman should consume no more than 5.5 micrograms per day of mercury, meaning that the average American consumer may be eating five times the upper safety limit of mercury every day due to high-fructose corn syrup consumption if they consume the foods tested in the study.

That's because the average American consumes 12 teaspoons of HFCS every day! So just by eating the standard American diet of processed foods, consumers are right now potentially exposing themselves to exceedingly high levels of mercury that far surpass the safety limits set by the EPA.


Buy groceries, get free mercury!
High-fructose corn syrup is used in almost everything, it seems. A second study conducted by David Wallinga, M.D., entitled "Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup" (http://healthobservatory.org/librar...) reveals that nearly one-third of all grocery items sweetened with HFCS were contaminated with mercury.

Eating some sweetened yogurt? Mercury!

How about some salad dressing with HFCS? Mercury!

Want some ketchup on that burger? Mercury!

In fact, mercury is found in thousands of grocery products sold across the world right now. And it's no exaggeration to say that mainstream consumers of popular food items are likely suffering from widespread mercury poisoning (especially if you add in the mercury exposure they're getting from dental fillings).


Where does all the mercury come from?
Most people don't know how high-fructose corn syrup is really made. One of those processes is a bizarre chemical brew involving the creation of caustic soda by exposing raw materials to pools of electrified mercury in a large vat. Through this process, the caustic soda gets contaminated with mercury, and when corn kernels are exposed to this caustic soda to break them down, that contamination is passed through to the HFCS.

Another toxic chemical, glutaraldehyde, is also used in the production of HFCS. It's so toxic that consuming even a small amount of it can burn a hole in your stomach.

But don't worry: The Corn Refiners Association insists that HFCS is a "natural" ingredient, and their Chicago-based PR firm Weber Shandwick is now also claiming that HFCS has been declared "natural" by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It hasn't really, of course, but that doesn't stop the press releases from claiming it has. (If you think a liquid sugar processed with glutaraldehyde and contaminated with mercury is "natural," then you've been duped. There's nothing natural about a processed food ingredient made with toxic chemicals.)

A Weber Shandwick representative calls me every time I post an article about HFCS, by the way, usually with demands that I remove the entire article. I've invited the Corn Refiners Association to a phone interview to defend their position that HFCS doesn't cause diabetes or obesity, and to answer questions about whether HFCS is really "natural." So far, they have declined to be interviewed. It seems they don't want to face real questions from an honest journalist who refuses to be censored by powerful corporations.

One thing I've got to say about the Corn Refiners Association is that they have a well-funded PR machine running around the internet trying to make everybody remove stories that say anything negative about HFCS.

I've noticed that the Corn Refiners Association is a master at spinning the truth. For example, the president of the CRA, Audrae Erickson, said this in a statement responding to the mercury findings: "Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two reagents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years."

Well sure, that's true. But what is Erickson NOT saying? She's not saying that ALL the HFCS is made without mercury. She just says that somewhere in the industry, somebody is using a mercury-free version of the caustic soda. That doesn't mean all the HFCS is mercury free, yet if you don't read her statement carefully, you might be misled into thinking that. Her statement, in fact, leaves open the possibility that 99% of all HFCS might still be manufactured using mercury.

Note carefully that Erickson does not say all HFCS sold in the U.S. is free from mercury. Instead, she makes a clever statement that results in most readers assuming that's what she means. The CRA is well known for using this kind of language spin tactics.

NaturalNews challenges the CRA to state that all HFCS is free from mercury (see below).


The HFCS fairy tale
The CRA isn't just in the business of pushing HFCS, by the way. It's also in the business of denial. For example: Virtually everyone who understands holistic nutrition agrees that HFCS promotes diabetes and obesity. But in much the same way that Big Tobacco executives once swore that "nicotine is not addictive," the Corn Refiners Association insists that high-fructose corn syrup does not promote diabetes or obesity.

So don't worry about the mercury in your HFCS. Or the other toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing process. That's all natural, we're supposed to believe. And high-fructose corn syrup is a healthy, wholesome, all-American sweetener grown without pesticides by poor Midwestern farmers who have given their lives and souls to create a sweeter, happier America.

Or at least that's the fairy tale version of the story. In reality, HFCS is created by corporate agriculture giants using toxic pesticides and herbicides on the crops who subject their corn to numerous toxic chemicals in the creation of this potentially mercury-contaminated processed sweetener that promotes tooth decay, obesity, diabetes and possibly even neurological disorders thanks to the mercury.

Yum. I can't wait to gobble down another chocolate candy bar sweetened with this stuff...


Politics at the FDA
There's an angle on this story that nobody is yet reporting. The lead author of this study, Renee Dufault, used to work for the FDA. In fact, she investigated the use of mercury at chlorine plants, where the manufacturing process results in the chlorine being contaminated with mercury. With chlorine being dumped into the public water supply, this is obviously a health concern.

Renee Dufault retired from the FDA last year. Only now, nearly a year after her retirement, has she dared to release her findings about mercury and high-fructose corn syrup.

Can you guess why? As an employee of the FDA, there's little question she would have been pressured into silence about the HFCS mercury contamination issue. A lot of powerful corporations that wield steady influence over the FDA would not be happy to see the truth come out about HFCS and mercury. So she waited until after retiring from the FDA to go public with these findings.

In fact, Reuters is now reporting that Dufault told the FDA about her findings, but the agency did nothing to act on them. Is anybody really surprised?


Lies about mercury
The Corn Refiners Association, predictably, is attacking these study results, claiming "This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance..."

That's because the samples used in the study were taken in 2005. The CRA seems to imply they've cleaned up their act since then and are now using a mercury-free process (see statement from Erickson, above). But note that the CRA carefully avoids claiming all HFCS is free from mercury. Their official reply to the Environmental Health article is a perfect example of corporate doublespeak: http://www.corn.org/mercury-HFCS-st...

Specifically, note that the statement avoids promising that all HFCS meets the FDA's definition of the term "natural" or that all HFCS is free from mercury.

NaturalNews challenges the honesty of the Corn Refiners Association in making these seemingly deceptive statements. We request that if the CRA is really to be believed, it must publicly state that all HFCS sold in America today is free from mercury and that all HFCS meets the definition of "natural" as described by the FDA.

Don't hold your breath on that. I can already tell you the CRA will never make such statements because it knows they would be provably false. The truth is that last thing the CRA wants to make public, in my view. I think it's really in the business of creating the illusion of truth through clever P.R. tactics.


Did the CRA know about the mercury contamination of HFCS?
But let's give the CRA the benefit of the doubt for a minute here. Let's suppose that right up to 2005, HFCS was routinely contaminated with mercury, but now suddenly it's all mercury free.

Doesn't anybody wonder why didn't the CRA recall the mercury-contaminated HFCS when it became aware of the issue?

If all HFCS is now manufactured in a mercury-free process (which is highly doubtful, by the way), then that means at some point the CRA must have realized HFCS was contaminated with mercury and it made a decision to switch to a mercury-free process. Why was the public never warned about the pre-2006 mercury in HFCS? And why weren't foods containing HFCS recalled from store shelves due to their mercury content?

If the CRA's present-day statements are to be believed, it means the group must have been aware of the mercury contamination of HFCS through 2005 and yet it did nothing to make that fact known to the public.

So even if HFCS is free from mercury today, the CRA has a lot of explaining to do. The group either knew about the mercury contamination and did nothing to warn the public, or it didn't know about the mercury contamination, putting it in a position of remarkable ignorance about the safety of a product it has routinely claimed to be "safe" and "natural" for many years.

So which is it? Is the CRA run by liars, or just fools?

My offer for a phone interview with a CRA representative remains open. If anybody from the CRA wants to get on the phone with me and defend HFCS, the door is wide open. You know how to reach me.

Disclaimer: This article is an opinion piece. All statements are my own opinion and are obviously not agreed to by the CRA, which vigorously defends the safety of HFCS. Almost as if their jobs depended on it, come to think....

Sources for this story:

Environmental Health: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...

Reuters: http://uk.reuters.com/article/healt...

Huffington Post: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2
and
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/20...

Posted by Papillon :: 7:57 AM :: 0 Comments:

Post a Comment

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

lundi, janvier 26, 2009

Root Canals Can Have Devastating Effects on Health

Originally published January 26 2009
Root Canals Can Have Devastating Effects on Health
by Jo Hartley, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Is it wise and prudent to have a root canal? There are issues with root canal therapy that everyone should know before deciding to have one.

There has been recent research that presents valid proof of systemic illnesses that are a direct result from latent infections lingering in filled roots. These conclusions are based on research performed by Dr. Weston Price over a 25 year period in the beginning of the twentieth century.

The research done by Dr. Weston Price discusses how root canals can cause bacteria to become trapped inside the structure of teeth. This can be the cause of many diseases that can be traced to one single source.

A high percentage of chronic degenerative diseases may actually originate from root canals. The most common diseases are circulatory and heart disease. The next common diseases are those involving joints and arthritis.

The allegation is that there was a series of events that led to important information being hidden about seventy years ago by a group of doctors who didn't fully understand the "focal infection theory."
What is the focal infection theory…and how is it connected to root canals?

The focal infection theory says that germs from a central focal infection (decaying teeth, roots, inflamed gum tissues, and tonsils, can metastasize to the heart, eyes, kidneys, lungs, or other organs and tissues. This then spreads the same infection to these new areas. This theory has been proven extensively and is regarded as fact.

Focal infection states that the bacteria can move into surrounding tissues and travel to other locations in the body through the bloodstream. This new location may be an organ or tissue and the new colony will be a new infection for the body.

Currently, however, patients and doctors have been led into complacency by believing that infections are not as serious because of antibiotics. This is simply not true. In the situation of root-filled teeth, the no longer alive tooth does not have blood being supplied to its interior. This means that antibiotics will not reach this area and will not fight any bacteria that exist there.

Dr. Price performed many experiments while conducting his research. One such experiment involved removing an infected tooth from a woman who had severe arthritis. Dr. Price took the infected tooth and implanted it under the skin of a healthy rabbit. Incredibly, within 48 hours the rabbit had severe arthritis as well.

The claim is that all root-filled teeth contain bacteria or other infective agents. It doesn't matter what technique is used or what material is used.

Another important point is that the main part of teeth that appear solid is called "dentin." While this appears solid, it is actually made up of tiny "tubules." In healthy teeth, these tubules will transport a fluid that nourishes the inside of the tooth. A root-filled tooth does not have any fluid circulating through it anymore, but the tubules remain. The bacteria that are present in this area of the root-filled tooth seem to be out of reach of antibiotics. The tiny organisms hiding in the tubules move further in to the interior of the tooth to stay and then multiply.

One more factor that plays an important role in this situation is the fact that large bacteria are common in the mouth. These bacteria will change and adapt to changing conditions. They can shrink to fit small areas and they can also survive on small amounts of food. The organisms that must have oxygen are able to mutate and then survive without oxygen. Because of this adaptation, these organisms can become pathogenic and are able to produce serious disease.

Today's scientists are able to confirm the research conducted by Dr. Price all those years ago. Recent research has shown strains of "streptococcus," "staphylococcus," and "spirochetes" existing in root canals.

Root canals will not make everyone sick. However, current belief is that every root canal filling will leak and this leakage will allow bacteria to invade the structure. The variable between those who become sick with a degenerative disease and those who do not seems to be the strength of a person's immune system. People who are in good health will be able to control the organisms that escape from their teeth and infiltrate other areas of the body.

This is because the white blood cells and other fighters are not constantly busy with other diseases. The immune system is able to prevent new bacterial colonies from taking over other tissues in the body. Over time, however, most people who have had root canals seem to develop various types of systemic symptoms that were not previously present.

If an extraction is necessary, it is now apparent that merely extracting the tooth is not enough. It has been determined that bacteria are present in the tissues and bone just adjacent to a tooth's root. The new recommendation is slow-speed drilling with a burr to remove 1 millimeter of the entire bony socket.

If the tooth is dead and can't be saved, then the best course of action would be to have a root canal with a material called "Biocalex." "Biocalex" eliminates many of the dangerous bacteria and will cause fewer complications. If this fails, it may be necessary to extract the tooth. It would be best to find a biological dentist for this procedure. Many biological dentists have alternative methods that can save a tooth in some cases.

Sources: http://www.healingdaily.com/exercis...

Root Canal Cover-Up by George Meinig

Posted by Papillon :: 2:29 PM :: 0 Comments:

Post a Comment

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

mercredi, janvier 14, 2009

UN Treaty Might Weaken Families

The following is an article, though not having to do with health, still I find worthy to make note of:

Washington Times Op-ed—U.N. Treaty Might Weaken Families

by J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President

One of the issues American families could face this year is the ramifications from a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

You may ask, “How could a treaty directly affect internal decision-making by American families?” We generally think of treaties as agreements affecting international relations between countries. The U.N., however, has initiated treaties that not only affect international relations, but also the domestic relations of member nations as well. These treaties, sometimes called “conventions,” require member nations that ratify the treaty to implement the requirements as binding law or rules.

On Nov. 20, 1989, the U.N. adopted the CRC and submitted it for ratification to the member nations. It has been ratified by 193 nations—the United States is one of the few countries that has not ratified it.

The ratification process requires a two-thirds vote by the U.S. Senate. On Feb. 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., signed the CRC on behalf of the United States. The CRC, however, has never been sent to the Senate for ratification because there is insufficient support to pass it.

Due to the recent election, however, there are rumblings from Capitol Hill that there will be an effort to seek ratification of the CRC during the next congressional cycle. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty, and as secretary of state, would have direct control over the submission of treaties to the Senate.

Why should passage of the CRC be of concern? It likely would have a negative impact on domestic law and practice in the United States. Article VI of our Constitution makes treaties—and remember, conventions are viewed as treaties—“the supreme law of the land.” The CRC would be treated as superior to laws in every state regarding the parent-child relationship. This would include issues regarding education, health care, family discipline, the child’s role in family decision-making, and a host of other subjects.

Article 43 of the CRC establishes an international committee on the rights of the child to examine compliance by member nations. This committee, which sits in Geneva, has final authority concerning interpretation of the language contained in the CRC.

Two central principles of the CRC clearly are contrary to current U.S. laws related to parent-child relationships. The CRC provides that in all matters relating to children, whether private or public, or in courts, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Additionally, nations should ensure that children are capable of expressing their views freely in all matters affecting them, giving due weight to the age and maturity of the child.

This is contrary to traditional American law, which provides that absent proof of harm, courts and social workers simply do not have the authority to intervene in parent-child relationships and decision-making. The importance of this tradition and practice is that the government may not substitute its judgment for that of the parent until there is proof of harm to the child sufficient to justify governmental intervention. It is clear that in two very important areas of the parent-child relationship, religion and education, there will be potential for tremendous conflict.

The international committee in Geneva, in reviewing the laws of practice of countries that have ratified the CRC, has expressed its concern that parents could homeschool without the view of the child being considered; that parents could remove their children from sex-education classes without the view of the child being considered; that parents were legally permitted to use corporal punishment; and that children didn’t have access to reproductive health information without parental knowledge.

The bottom line is the CRC would drastically weaken the United States’ sovereignty over family life, which would have a substantial impact on every American family. For more information on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, visit www.parentalrights.org/learn.

Michael Smith is the president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He may be contacted at (540)338-5600; or send email to media@hslda.org.

Posted by Papillon :: 10:53 AM :: 0 Comments:

Post a Comment

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

dimanche, janvier 11, 2009

Welcome to the New Era of Eugenics

NaturalNews.com printable article
Originally published January 11 2009
Breast Cancer Gene-Free Baby Is Dangerous Sign of New Era of Eugenics, Genetic Class Wars
by Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The era of pre-birth genetic screening of babies has commenced. Doctors at University College in London have produced what they called the "world's first breast cancer gene-free baby" by screening a baby for the BRCA1 gene, which they claim causes breast cancer. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/78196...)

That announcement is saturated with so many medical myths, it's difficult to know where to begin. For starters, the idea that the BRCA1 gene causes cancer is pure hogwash. There's no such thing as a gene that causes cancer by itself. The truth is that environmental factors such as exposure to cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicines, personal care products, pesticides or other industrial chemicals causes the expression of the cancer gene. Without all that toxic chemical exposure, the gene never gets expressed in the first place.

And it gets even better: You can eat raw broccoli sprouts or other cruciferous vegetables and suppress the BRCA1 gene so that you never grow cancer tumors at all. Thus, the patient has complete control over the expression of their genes based on their diet and environment, and there are literally hundreds of different foods that have an anti-cancer effect: Cruciferous vegetables, onions, garlic, red wine, green tea, raw cacao, omega-3 oils, and of course a whole universe of anti-cancer herbs and superfoods.

This doesn't even mention the effects of vitamin D and exercise on the BRCA1 gene, both of which also suppress cancer.

But modern medicine -- which is largely based on marketing-motivated quackery -- wants women to believe they have no control over breast cancer and that it all comes down to your genes, not your choices. That's the little trap they set for women, stripping them of their power and condemning them to a lifetime of medical "treatment" that just happens to earn outrageous profits for the drug companies.

Welcome to the new era of eugenics
So now we have a new era being unleashed where babies born with the BRCA1 gene are going to be considered "defective" while babies born without the gene will be considered "superior."

This is leading us into a dangerous new mindset where babies will be condemned as second-class citizens from the moment they're born simply because they carry a gene that the corrupt medical system mistakenly believes is a causative factor for some disease.

The relevant movie to watch here is GATTACA (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/), a film that depicts a future society where your genes determine every opportunity you have in life: Your job, you income, your social standing and much more.

GATTACA is a smart movie that sends a highly relevant warning message: If we begin to profile babies for their genes, then we are heading down a slippery slope of defunct medical ethics that could ultimately lead to a new division between the "genetic upper class" and the "genetic lower class."

The next class war could very well be based on genetics, and parents will fret over the genetic makeup of their children, choosing to abort babies that don't have the "right" genes, even if those babies are perfectly healthy. And then we'll have medical companies offering to manipulate the genes of the fertilized egg, promising to give parents a baby with blond hair, or a high IQ, or a thin physique...

It's just what we need, huh? A whole society of genetically-selected supermodels running around society, thinking they're superior because they've been genetically designed by scientists who think they're God.

These gene-pushing doctors mistakenly think they can determine the future of a human being by manipulating the genes of the fetus. It's no surprise, after all: Most conventionally-trained physicians believe in outright determinism, thinking that there is no such thing as a soul, or free will, or a spiritual reality of any kind. You're born with genes, you "play out" your predetermined fate recorded in those genes, and then you die and that's the end of everything. It's a deeply pessimistic, deterministic point of view, and yet it's the view that's held by the vast majority of western doctors.

The real truth is that while genes certainly have potential influence over a person's health, it is the environment (foods, health habits, exercise, exposure to chemicals, etc.) that is the far more important factor in determining what happens to an individual's health. I can take a room full of a thousand BRCA1 gene carriers and show every one of them how to live a life 100% free of breast cancer through simple, safe and low-cost methods that are available to everyone.

Modern medicine refuses to do that. Because despite all the grand technology, the manipulation of human life and the arrogant playing God that takes place daily in the minds of western doctors, there's one thing they still haven't figured out how to do: Tell the truth to a patient about how they can prevent cancer, regardless of their genes.

Modern medicine is a huge technical success and a complete humanistic failure. It offers the most impressive technology in the world and puts it into the hands of the most ethically-deficient professionals who are so pessimistic about the nature of reality that they don't even believe in the existence of their own souls.

And do you really want scientists who don't even believe in the existence of the human soul to be playing God with your baby's genes?

Disturbing.

It should also be noted, by the way, that this whole process of "gene screening babies" involves testing the embryo at the eight-cell stage (when conception has already taken place and the baby is beginning to grow), and then throwing away any embryos that don't fit the desire genetic profile.

In effect, the gene screening of babies involves the systematic destruction of viable human embryos that could grow into full-fledged babies. This opens up a whole new debate on the issue of abortion, of course, and I'd like to hear your comments on all this. Simply post your thoughts in the comment section below.

The key issues are: At what point is the genetic screening of a baby going too far? Most people might agree, for example, that screening for major birth defects is acceptable, but is it acceptable to screen for things like blue eyes and then toss out the embryos that don't carry that gene?

What will happen in the future of society if the gene screening of embryos becomes socially acceptable and is embraced by parents?

What are the risks posed by a race of beings that engages in routine genetic selection? (For example, might be lose biodiversity? Might the BRCA1 gene have another positive purpose that doctors haven't identified yet?)

Should humans be genetically engineered to insert new traits? Larger brains? Stronger muscles? Bigger boobs? (Parents could actually order up a boob job on their daughter before she's born!)

Think carefully about this one. It's a hugely complex sociomedicalethical issue.


visit www.NaturalNews.com/

Posted by Papillon :: 6:04 PM :: 0 Comments:

Post a Comment

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

mardi, janvier 06, 2009

Bayer Knowingly Sold HIV-Contaminated Vaccines, Say Internal Documents

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, January 5, 2009
Key concepts: Bayer, Vaccines and HIV

Here's a little-known truth about Bayer that needs to be revisited. In 2006, it was discovered that Bayer found out a vaccine it was selling in the United States was accidentally contaminated with HIV.

In order to cover its tracks, say the journalists in this video (below), Bayer pulled the vaccines off the market and sold them to consumers in Japan, France, Spain and other countries, where hemophiliacs were then contaminated with HIV due to the vaccine.

Watch the video yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs

And yet, despite these apparent crimes, no Bayer executives ever faced arrest or prosecution in the United States.

A Bayer spinmeister had this to say: "Bayer behaved responsibly, ethically and humanely... [and its actions] were consistent with regulations."

Sure they did. Don't forget that Bayer is the same pharmaceutical company linked to Nazi Germany's medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. They have a long and dark history of being involved in the manufacture of chemical weapons. As stated on CorporateWatch.org (http://archive.corporatewatch.org/profi...):

" IG Farben continued to grow during the inter-war period as one of the most powerful chemical and pharmaceutical companies in the world. Products included polyurethanes and the first 'sulpha' drugs. It is during Nazi-era Germany and WW2 that IG Farben (Bayer) entered its most sinister phase. IG Farben as the leading chemical company in Nazi Germany took over chemical plants across Nazi occupied Europe, used slave-labour in their factories (including operating their own concentration camp), conducted medical experiments on those held in the concentration camps and manufactured the poison gas used to kill thousands. At the end of the war the 1945 Potsdam Agreement called for the break up of IG Farben into its constituent companies. Twelve IG Farben employees and directors were jailed for war crimes at the Nuremburg Trials."

Anybody who takes anything made by Bayer is, in my opinion, supporting a corporation that has been committing crimes against humanity for nearly a hundred years.


www.naturalnews.com

Posted by Papillon :: 4:33 PM :: 1 Comments:

Post a Comment

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