Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61

Thread: Alan Aragon's Argument against paleo/primal lifestyle (with slide show) page 5

  1. #41
    stallion23's Avatar
    stallion23 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    14
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    You really don't have to repeat that last part... I'm pretty much impossible to offend

    As to my question to you and that you claim you are unable to comply.... (re...grain free society that grain introduced to)... Well you have already recognized your limitations there. You are looking for "industrialized" or even "third world" societies. Your gonna have to dig deeper here. I'll let you work at it.

    "I ask you to find me ANY study documenting ANY negative effects on whole grains on a human beings. ANY population. ANY negative effect." Do you really mean any population? There is obviously the celiac and gluten intolerant populations that would come to mind. I did see his slide and I don't think he represents the issue adequately. I don't feel like rewriting so I'm just gonna link a thread that I represented my own opinions on this in http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread89613-2.html Just look for my responses if you like.

    Another thing I will admit to is not understanding why the onus is on me anyhow? If I can prove that there are entire populations that thrive on a no grain diet, why is the onus on me? Cause I'm taking it away from you I suppose. But why isn't the onus on the one adding it instead? I dunno. Weird concept to me. Is this like logic etiquette that I just haven't taken the time to learn?

    Your first paragraph is kinda odd... I pointed out that these are manipulated or can be manipulated. They are thus variables. Just the act of choosing one study over another is a variable. That was my point. And there are primitive societies, I am told, with good health that live on under 5% PUFA (Derp says so). So how would that make it some sort of life saver and SFA evil? I'll find some other stuff... or enlist some help.... right now gotta go start a fire for the kids.
    If you have an issue with the inclusion criteria of the analysis please point it out because I don't see any type of bias in their criteria. The act of choosing one study over another isn't "a variable". They chose studies that actually had value, that were more than just observational in nature.

    Directly from the source: "Studies were included if they randomized participants to increased PUFA for at least 1 year without major concomitant interventions, had an appropriate control group, and reported incidence of CHD (myocardial infarction and/or cardiac death); Studies were excluded if they were observational or otherwise nonrandomized; tested mainly n-3 (rather than total or n-6) PUFA interventions or evaluated only intermediate (e.g., lipid levels) or “soft” (e.g., angina) CHD endpoints; or were commentaries, reviews, or duplicate publications from the same study". That seems like an excellent criteria for choosing studies. Which one of those do you have an issue with?

    When I asked you to find me any study documenting any negative effects of whole grains on human beings, I clearly wrote in my last post that I prefer you not include celiacs in this discussion. People who suffer from celiac disease clearly can not eat gluten secondary to an auto immune reaction occurring in their bodies. These people have a specific documented medical condition which does not allow them to process gluten correctly. That would be like me saying, "there are people out there who are lactose-intolerant, therefore No one should drink milk and milk is unfit for any human being" or even a better example would be those who are diagnosed with Gaut. People with Gaut have an increase in uric acid crystals in their joints. Because purine-rich foods are converted into uric acid by the body, people with Gaut should avoid these foods. Shellfish and organ meats are (among others) purine-rich. It is plausible to say that people with Gaut should not eat shellfish and organ meats. It would be rediculous to say that these foods will cause the same negative response in people without this medical condition. This is why I want to see a study done on humans (who are not celiacs) to show any negative effects of grains.

    Lastly, about the whole burden of proof. This is based on simple logic. A claim without any evidence is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some evidence/support. As it does in a court of law, the burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. You can not shift the Burden of Proof. If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong.

    If you can not provide that evidence/support, then the default position of disbelief is justified. In practice, then, you are claiming that grains and PUFA's are bad for you. You must back up your claim with evidence preferably with studies done on human populations that aren't celiacs. You're gonna have to dig deeper here. I'll let you work at it.
    Last edited by stallion23; 08-25-2013 at 01:38 AM.

  2. #42
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,606
    Quote Originally Posted by stallion23 View Post
    If you have an issue with the inclusion criteria of the analysis please point it out because I don't see any type of bias in their criteria. The act of choosing one study over another isn't "a variable". They chose studies that actually had value, that were more than just observational in nature.

    Directly from the source: "Studies were included if they randomized participants to increased PUFA for at least 1 year without major concomitant interventions, had an appropriate control group, and reported incidence of CHD (myocardial infarction and/or cardiac death); Studies were excluded if they were observational or otherwise nonrandomized; tested mainly n-3 (rather than total or n-6) PUFA interventions or evaluated only intermediate (e.g., lipid levels) or “soft” (e.g., angina) CHD endpoints; or were commentaries, reviews, or duplicate publications from the same study". That seems like an excellent criteria for choosing studies. Which one of those do you have an issue with?

    When I asked you to find me any study documenting any negative effects of whole grains on human beings, I clearly wrote in my last post that I prefer you not include celiacs in this discussion. People who suffer from celiac disease clearly can not eat gluten secondary to an auto immune reaction occurring in their bodies. These people have a specific documented medical condition which does not allow them to process gluten correctly. That would be like me saying, "there are people out there who are lactose-intolerant, therefore No one should drink milk and milk is unfit for any human being" or even a better example would be those who are diagnosed with Gaut. People with Gaut have an increase in uric acid crystals in their joints. Because purine-rich foods are converted into uric acid by the body, people with Gaut should avoid these foods. Shellfish and organ meats are (among others) purine-rich. It is plausible to say that people with Gaut should not eat shellfish and organ meats. It would be rediculous to say that these foods will cause the same negative response in people without this medical condition. This is why I want to see a study done on humans (who are not celiacs) to show any negative effects of grains.

    Lastly, about the whole burden of proof. This is based on simple logic. A claim without any evidence is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some evidence/support. As it does in a court of law, the burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. You can not shift the Burden of Proof. If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong.

    If you can not provide that evidence/support, then the default position of disbelief is justified. In practice, then, you are claiming that grains and PUFA's are bad for you. You must back up your claim with evidence preferably with studies done on human populations that aren't celiacs. You're gonna have to dig deeper here. I'll let you work at it.

    I think you mean gout right? But yeah, neither of those are very comparable to the mechanisms associated with celiac disease or gluten intolerance. And yes you have to include gluten intolerance and gluten allergy in your projections. Like I said.... read my replies in the linked thread on this. I don't think you did, or you wouldn't had made that absurd comment on lactose intolerance. So in the case of grains that is my primary concern and as to the evidence to support it.... it is ample IMO.

    As to burden of proof.... the epidemiological data I asked you to look for doesnt count? I'll get you started.

    Cassidy CM. Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two prehistoric populations. in Nutritional Anthropology. Eds Jerome NW et al. 1980 Redgrave Publishing Company, Pleasantville, NY pg 117-145

    This study is blogged about here if you can't find the original:

    Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers » The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

    By no means is this the nail in the coffin on grains, but in combination with what I have already written on gluten and our problems with GMO dwarf, and other epidemiological evidence.... well make up your own mind as to if it is worth eliminating for 30-60 days and finding out if you are one of many that are affected.

    So thats grains for you. They exist on a continuum of least likely to be detrimental to most likely and you have to take into account cultivation and preparation. There is ample evidence that as humans they are not necessary for health, and in fact epidemiological evidence seems to support the concept that societies that do not include them are healthier than those that do.

    As to PUFA... this is getting long again and I'm now off for a hike, but lets just start with a point that SFA has for the most part been vindicated. So maybe the onus of this one is on the people stating that PUFA should need to replace SFA to make us healthier? I mean this is a concept born of the Key's crap 50+ years ago and the heart health hypothesis. We can pick this up in a bit though. BTW have you tried the search function at the top? Perhaps you can do some reading while I'm gone... this really has all been covered before, which is what makes the whole argument a bit redundant....here is a start for you again:

    Is It All Just a “Paleofantasy”? | Mark's Daily Apple

    Polyunsaturated Fats: Are They Healthy? | Mark's Daily Apple

  3. #43
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,288
    Quote Originally Posted by stallion23 View Post
    When I asked you to find me any study documenting any negative effects of whole grains on human beings, I clearly wrote in my last post that I prefer you not include celiacs in this discussion. People who suffer from celiac disease clearly can not eat gluten secondary to an auto immune reaction occurring in their bodies. These people have a specific documented medical condition which does not allow them to process gluten correctly. That would be like me saying, "there are people out there who are lactose-intolerant, therefore No one should drink milk and milk is unfit for any human being" or even a better example would be those who are diagnosed with Gaut. People with Gaut have an increase in uric acid crystals in their joints. Because purine-rich foods are converted into uric acid by the body, people with Gaut should avoid these foods. Shellfish and organ meats are (among others) purine-rich. It is plausible to say that people with Gaut should not eat shellfish and organ meats. It would be rediculous to say that these foods will cause the same negative response in people without this medical condition. This is why I want to see a study done on humans (who are not celiacs) to show any negative effects of grains.
    Are you deliberately. misrepresenting this, or do you really not understand how gluten intolerance works? Only 1 in 8 of celiac sufferers have been diagnosed. Those who have celiac may represent as much as 1% of the population. Those who have non-celiac gluten intolerance (with exactly the same spectrum of symptoms, but without intestinal villi atrophy) may be 10 or 20 times greater in numbers. Even fewer of them have been diagnosed, but it is just as harmful for them to eat wheat.

    The typical person with celiac goes for 10 years of searching for a diagnosis before getting one. It is not unusual for one to finally discover the source of their problem after decades of clear symptoms and permanent irreversible damage.

    So of the general population, if you subtract those who have been diagnosed with celiac, you have removed only a tiny fraction of those who are harmed by eating wheat and other gluten grains. Clearly you cannot segregate the population meaningfully in this way, as there is no public health effort to identify the large portion of the population with gluten intolerance.

    As a comparison, 35.9% of Americans are obese, and 4% are morbidly obese. We hear about this constantly. It is considered a major public health threat by some and a sign of moral decay of our civilization by others. Everybody who is obese knows it is a health problem to them.

    If we were to try to study only people who are slender and fit, would it give us meaningful information that can be applied to find a fix for the obesity problem? Quite possibly not. Ignoring reality can be a great intellectual exercise, but often the research dollars are wasted.

  4. #44
    mmack66's Avatar
    mmack66 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    40
    Wasn't there a thread about a year ago that debunked this guy and this PowerPoint presentation?

  5. #45
    Greg Rx's Avatar
    Greg Rx is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Rochester Michigan
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    Whatever we want it to be, apparently. What paleo dieter brags about eating lean meat and avoiding dairy?
    Both Wolfe and Cordain originally called for LEAN meats. That one word turned me off to both men. But back when these books were written, suggesting a high fat, low carb diet would have been too radical. To this day I think a majority of first time low carbers, try to keep low fat and low carb. Then they wonder why they feel so bad.
    Many doctors, even outside of paleo warn against dairy. The biggest reason being that here in the States, raw dairy is all but illegal and pasteurised dairy is a highly refined nutritional, dead food. That said, I cannot give up my hard cheese, but I have noticed benefits since cutting back.
    I would also like to point out that you can not say that a certain percentage have leaky gut. We all have variable membrane permeability that is adversely effected by grains and legumes. It is not IF you have a leaky gut but HOW LEAKY.
    What is wrong about grains containing toxins that cause you to sh*t out the grains whole or to make you sick and avoid the grain in the Future? What was his Point? Has he ever heard of an elimination Diet? N1 experiment? 80/20 Rule? Better health thru decreased Stress? Most important, paleo/primal is a lifestyle, not a Diet!

  6. #46
    J. Stanton's Avatar
    J. Stanton is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by stallion23 View Post
    You made some great points there. As always, there are good points on both sides of this argument. As an example, I can give you studies that refute your ideas that O6 oils are unhealthy:

    PLOS Medicine: Effects on Coronary Heart Disease of Increasing Polyunsaturated Fat in Place of Saturated Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    "These findings provide evidence that consuming PUFA in place of SFA reduces CHD events in RCTs. This suggests that rather than trying to lower PUFA consumption, a shift toward greater population PUFA consumption in place of SFA would significantly reduce rates of CHD."

    I guess the most important study is your own personal n=1.
    That's a nice cherry-pick by either you or AA (not sure which) -- but it shows unfamiliarity with the body of research. It turns out that if you separate interventions that provide n-3 along with n-6, vs. interventions that only raise n-6, you find that raising n-6 alone increases risk of CHD and death:

    Br J Nutr. 2010 Dec;104(11):1586-600. doi: 10.1017/S0007114510004010.
    n-6 fatty acid-specific and mixed polyunsaturate dietary interventions have different effects on CHD risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
    Ramsden CE, Hibbeln JR, Majchrzak SF, Davis JM.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21118617

    "For non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI)+CHD death, the pooled risk reduction for mixed n-3/n-6 PUFA diets was 22 % (risk ratio (RR) 0.78; 95 % CI 0.65, 0.93) compared to an increased risk of 13 % for n-6 specific PUFA diets (RR 1.13; 95 % CI 0.84, 1.53)."
    Strike one.
    "Risk of non-fatal MI+CHD death was significantly higher in n-6 specific PUFA diets compared to mixed n-3/n-6 PUFA diets (P = 0.02)."
    Strike two,
    "RCT that substituted n-6 PUFA for TFA and SFA without simultaneously increasing n-3 PUFA produced an increase in risk of death that approached statistical significance (RR 1.16; 95 % CI 0.95, 1.42). "Advice to specifically increase n-6 PUFA intake, based on mixed n-3/n-6 RCT data, is unlikely to provide the intended benefits, and may actually increase the risks of CHD and death."

    Strike three. And please note that n-6 was substituted for TFA (trans fats) as well as SFA, and TFA have strongly negative health effects even at a low % energy:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19424218
    "A meta-analysis of prospective studies indicated 24, 20, 27 and 32% higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or CHD death for every 2% energy of TFA consumption isocalorically replacing carbohydrate, SFA, cis monounsaturated fatty acids and cis polyunsaturated fatty acids, respectively."

    Again, it's easy to cherry-pick one single study, or even one single meta-analysis. It takes a long time to become familiar enough with the research to get a bigger picture...much longer than it takes to justify a pre-existing prejudice with a few footnotes.

    EIDT TO ADD: Stephan Guyenet did a great debunking of the Mozaffarian paper back in the day:
    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...rials-new.html
    Not only did it fail to distinguish n-3 from n-6 PUFA, it simply omitted several trials that found highly unfavorable results for n-6 interventions, like the Rose Corn Oil Trial and Sydney Diet-Heart Trial. Result: junk science.

    JS
    Last edited by J. Stanton; 08-25-2013 at 06:42 PM. Reason: added one more link

  7. #47
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,050
    Quote Originally Posted by lea View Post
    OK, skimmed through the ppt.

    1. I didn't know paleo was anti-salt.
    Yeah, me either.

    Quote Originally Posted by lea View Post
    Some of the comments were just snotty in tone which turned me off. And half of the food he posted would be considered absolutely fine around here. So I don't know what to make of all this.
    Basically my take is that he is defining 'paleo' as being what Lauren Cordain says it is (or did, several years ago). And he's debunking that.

    And that's fine.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  8. #48
    stallion23's Avatar
    stallion23 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    I think you mean gout right? But yeah, neither of those are very comparable to the mechanisms associated with celiac disease or gluten intolerance. And yes you have to include gluten intolerance and gluten allergy in your projections. Like I said.... read my replies in the linked thread on this. I don't think you did, or you wouldn't had made that absurd comment on lactose intolerance. So in the case of grains that is my primary concern and as to the evidence to support it.... it is ample IMO.

    As to burden of proof.... the epidemiological data I asked you to look for doesnt count? I'll get you started.

    Cassidy CM. Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two prehistoric populations. in Nutritional Anthropology. Eds Jerome NW et al. 1980 Redgrave Publishing Company, Pleasantville, NY pg 117-145

    This study is blogged about here if you can't find the original:

    Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers » The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

    By no means is this the nail in the coffin on grains, but in combination with what I have already written on gluten and our problems with GMO dwarf, and other epidemiological evidence.... well make up your own mind as to if it is worth eliminating for 30-60 days and finding out if you are one of many that are affected.

    So thats grains for you. They exist on a continuum of least likely to be detrimental to most likely and you have to take into account cultivation and preparation. There is ample evidence that as humans they are not necessary for health, and in fact epidemiological evidence seems to support the concept that societies that do not include them are healthier than those that do.

    As to PUFA... this is getting long again and I'm now off for a hike, but lets just start with a point that SFA has for the most part been vindicated. So maybe the onus of this one is on the people stating that PUFA should need to replace SFA to make us healthier? I mean this is a concept born of the Key's crap 50+ years ago and the heart health hypothesis. We can pick this up in a bit though. BTW have you tried the search function at the top? Perhaps you can do some reading while I'm gone... this really has all been covered before, which is what makes the whole argument a bit redundant....here is a start for you again:

    Is It All Just a “Paleofantasy”? | Mark's Daily Apple

    Polyunsaturated Fats: Are They Healthy? | Mark's Daily Apple
    Yes, you are correct, I meant gout. Sorry for the misspelling. But regardless, my argument wasn't comparing the underlying pathological mechanisms of gout vs celiac disease. It was simply to show you that you can not make blanket recommendations for everyone based on the individual biology of those with a diagnosed medical disease.

    As for your study... I gave you a meta-analysis of several studies. You are giving me a case study...the lowest level of evidence second only to bench/theoretical research. Hardly proof of anything, wouldn't you say? You're talking about bias and all these other alleged weaknesses in the studies I gave you. But here you are giving me the weakest level of evidence to prove your point. That being said, I agree with you on the 30-60 day experiment. Individual results will vary and you should always listen to your own body regardless of what the evidence says. I have no issue with that. My only issue is when blanket recommendations are made such as "grains are harmful"...as if it applies to everyone.

    Look, I read the articles you linked to...but none of them address the elephant in the room: when you take a systematic review of the randomized control studies held under the process of scientific rigor to deem whether PUFAs are harmful or not....they are NOT harmful (as demonstrated by the link I gave you). All I'm seeing here is the blog posts where Mark writes his opinion on PUFAs...and that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I'm presenting scientific evidence, not blog posts.

  9. #49
    stallion23's Avatar
    stallion23 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Stanton View Post
    That's a nice cherry-pick by either you or AA (not sure which) -- but it shows unfamiliarity with the body of research. It turns out that if you separate interventions that provide n-3 along with n-6, vs. interventions that only raise n-6, you find that raising n-6 alone increases risk of CHD and death:

    Br J Nutr. 2010 Dec;104(11):1586-600. doi: 10.1017/S0007114510004010.
    n-6 fatty acid-specific and mixed polyunsaturate dietary interventions have different effects on CHD risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
    Ramsden CE, Hibbeln JR, Majchrzak SF, Davis JM.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21118617

    "For non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI)+CHD death, the pooled risk reduction for mixed n-3/n-6 PUFA diets was 22 % (risk ratio (RR) 0.78; 95 % CI 0.65, 0.93) compared to an increased risk of 13 % for n-6 specific PUFA diets (RR 1.13; 95 % CI 0.84, 1.53)."
    Strike one.
    "Risk of non-fatal MI+CHD death was significantly higher in n-6 specific PUFA diets compared to mixed n-3/n-6 PUFA diets (P = 0.02)."
    Strike two,
    "RCT that substituted n-6 PUFA for TFA and SFA without simultaneously increasing n-3 PUFA produced an increase in risk of death that approached statistical significance (RR 1.16; 95 % CI 0.95, 1.42). "Advice to specifically increase n-6 PUFA intake, based on mixed n-3/n-6 RCT data, is unlikely to provide the intended benefits, and may actually increase the risks of CHD and death."

    Strike three. And please note that n-6 was substituted for TFA (trans fats) as well as SFA, and TFA have strongly negative health effects even at a low % energy:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19424218
    "A meta-analysis of prospective studies indicated 24, 20, 27 and 32% higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or CHD death for every 2% energy of TFA consumption isocalorically replacing carbohydrate, SFA, cis monounsaturated fatty acids and cis polyunsaturated fatty acids, respectively."

    Again, it's easy to cherry-pick one single study, or even one single meta-analysis. It takes a long time to become familiar enough with the research to get a bigger picture...much longer than it takes to justify a pre-existing prejudice with a few footnotes.

    EIDT TO ADD: Stephan Guyenet did a great debunking of the Mozaffarian paper back in the day:
    Whole Health Source: Diet-Heart Controlled Trials: a New Literature Review
    Not only did it fail to distinguish n-3 from n-6 PUFA, it simply omitted several trials that found highly unfavorable results for n-6 interventions, like the Rose Corn Oil Trial and Sydney Diet-Heart Trial. Result: junk science.

    JS
    I didn't cherry pick you a single study. I gave you a systematic review which covered several randomised control trials- not just a single study that said "PUFAs are good for you".

    You actually are the first person here that presented a solid piece of research though. So I commend you on that but I can't actually see the entire article. Do you have a link to the actual study or is this just an abstract.

  10. #50
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,050
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Stanton View Post
    It takes a long time to become familiar enough with the research to get a bigger picture...much longer than it takes to justify a pre-existing prejudice with a few footnotes.
    JS, I'm a big fan of yours. But sentences like this are just an appeal to authority, reminiscent of Campbell's dismissal of Minder about the china study, since it's just 'too complex' for her simplistic analysis.

    I mean, couldn't adherents of any particular food philosophy make the same arguements in favour of their predisposed diet solution?
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •