| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale  Cultivation Supplies  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck  Bulk Cannabis Seeds |
| |||||||
 Heruuka member  Registered: 10/16/99  Posts: 342 |
| ||||||
|
I need some help here. I started off doing a research project on the acid-alkaline balancing trend in alternative medicine. Trouble is, I can't find ANY scientific information to support claims made by proponents of this theory of the origin of disease.
What I did find was that advocates were willing to dismiss scientific evidence and place their trust in individuals that stand to gain/profit from their support. It seems strange that people who will call skeptics "tools of big-pharma", will buy "natural" products from the same people that publish the health-claims, without any of the concern that they have for conventional therapies. I'm wondering if the community could contribute to this discussion. Do you think that the same standard of credibility (i.e. double-blind clinical trials etc) that conventional therapies must meet, should be applied to natural products? If not, why not? What reason do you have to trust unconventional medicine, and the companies that produce associated therapies, over conventional pharmaceutical companies? I'm just as interested in hearing the perspectives of people that don't believe in alternative medicine, and similarly why they don't trust alternative practitioners. If you have articles that you'd like to share that you feel contribute to the discussion it would be appreciated. I have a lot more I'd like to discuss but I'd like to see if there's interest in the discussion first. Thanks for your time, folks
| |||||||
|
Admiral Ackbar Admiral of the Rebel Alliance   Registered: 02/15/11 Posts: 1,213 Loc: forest moon of E |
| ||||||
 This should be the thesis of your paper. My 2 cents: Nothing is vigorously promoted that will not turn a profit. Why would these alternative groups exert time and resources to promote anything if it does not make them money? They would not. That is the same as mainstream medicine. If mainstream medicine (pharmaceutical companies) cannot patent something (meaning that they have a monopoly, and can charge exorbitant prices for a certain time period), then they would not investigate it. That is unless they can find something similar that is patentable, though posibly not as safe. The same is with alternative medicine. The alternative medicine practicioners are there to make money, or they would only do it as a hobby. Again, natural medicine, like mainstream medicine, can and does put forth helpful medicine and procedures, and they can be altruistic. But the majority of the natural medicine practitioners want people to buy something, a book, an e-book, or their own "proprietary" medicine. Kevin Trudeau is a fine example. He skimmed a bunch of web pages and research papers and came up with a half-assed book. You can get that book for $30, but they sign you up for newsletters and crap, at a monthly cost. The only reason this asshat writes these books is because the Federal Trade Commission sued his ass for fraud, and in the settlement, he gave up "selling". So, as a scam artist, his recourse was to use the first amendment to write books and newsletters, which are a scam themselves. The alkali diet, they want you to buy the book. Force factor, they want you to buy overpriced pills, on a subscription that is not easily cancelled (like Trudeau's) when you can buy all of the ingredients in bulk for about 10% of the cost of Force Factor. Trimspa, Extenze, Enzyte, hydroxycut, and Smoke Arest are just of few of the "natural remedies" that have been sued for false advertising, scamming, or damages caused by their products. Some of it is just a placebo effect. When the american diet is so poor that chocolate, coffee, and tea are now considered healthfoods, it is no wonder that a little root bark or some berries would have a positive-non placebo effect. The placebo effect comes from the power of the mind. The mind can make you sick (with anxiety or guilt for example), and the mind can heal (by reducing anxiety or guilt for example). The same with prayer, If your believe in it hard enough, you can imagine your symptoms waning. Some cultures believe that pain is a part of life, and should be expected. These people have a higher resistance to pain, and generally need/use less pain medicine demonstrating the power in a belief, belief system, or religion. Prayer, and religion, is in the same boat as natural and mainstream medicine. The bulk of religion is to make money (certainly not all religions), and that is what the mainstream religions do by tithing and donations ("why does preacher need a nice car? Why does preacher need a fancy house?") Some religions are altruistic, just as are some alternative and mainstreem practitioners. Religion, alternative medicene, and mainstreem medicine: a - Some are altruistic and want to help/ try/ use science. b - Some are money-grabbing whores and do not care who they hurt. c - Most are a working, functioning, and productive combination of both. -------------------- I'll tell your ass when it is a mother fucking trap! 
| |||||||
|
Heruuka member Registered: 10/16/99 Posts: 342 |
| ||||||
|
Good points admiral. Your focus on the similarities, rather than the differences, between the different healing industries has me thinking about the greater "healing infrastructure" as a common foundation to conventional medicine, alternative medicine, and religion. They all trade on the hope that people have that things will get better, as long as some 'expert' is in charge... really, anyone BUT themselves. The motivation for providing care, as you illustrated, is similarly common to all 3; a mix of profit, status/reputation, and real altruism.
I am biased because I work in conventional medicine and particularly medical biochemistry. Taking what you said, I can see how the biggest difference between the two types of medicine is that alternative practitioners have to be both pharmaceutical company AND clinician, while conventional doctors (in Canada at least) have the benefit of not needing to consider profit margins when deciding on a course of treatment... BBUT, they're still susceptible to the influence of pharmaceutical companies through their advertising etc. so they also practice "proprietary medicine". Can you think of a specific example of a culture where their perception of pain is reflected in their consumption of pain killers? It would be very helpful - its the perfect example of the concept of 'health' as an ethos, as opposed to a literal condition... at the other end of the spectrum of western society, where we're all diagnosed with something. Thanks for your contribution - definitely some insights I was missing. This next question is almost a poll question, but I'd like to hear how other people actually interpret this information: Let's say a systematic review of clinical trials was conducted comparing the placebo effect seen in clinical trials of conventional and alternative therapies with similar health claims. It was found that the placebo group in the Natural product trials showed a more significant and more positive effect (less or less severe detrimental side effect profile) than was seen in the pharmaceutical trials. What conclusions do you draw from this data? What is missing to make this comparison valid (if anything)? What further tests (if any) would you suggest, in order to investigate these findings further?
| |||||||
|
Admiral Ackbar Admiral of the Rebel Alliance Registered: 02/15/11 Posts: 1,213 Loc: forest moon of E |
| ||||||
Many Asian cultures used to be considered pain tolerant, as well as some native american cultures. This may not be true - read the article. http://www.unethical-studies.org
Because one is conducted in a sterile laboratory with chemical drugs and many participants. The other is conducted in a health and tranquility spa with incense and music using magical potions. Examine alternative medicine's placebo effect when the studies were done in a mainstream medical setting. -------------------- I'll tell your ass when it is a mother fucking trap!
| |||||||
|
Heruuka member Registered: 10/16/99 Posts: 342 |
| ||||||
|
Lets also assume that the trials were conducted in the same setting. The only difference is that the participants knew that the product in question was a "natural product" or standard pharmaceutical.
My own impression is that it suggests that the patient sample is more trusting of alternative medicine, and if the review were big enough, the data could be reasonably extrapolated to demonstrate the relative faith/fear of alternative medicine in a particular society or social group. There is a problem with comparing the two populations because you'd expect a more noticeable or intense effect when taking the pharm than the herbal stuff, so you could be expected to assume to be able to identify participants within the test group that are receiving the active drug over the placebo. Whereas, you'd expect that the natural product would have more subtle effects causing you to notice even minor changes. In terms of making a better test for this, I can't think of anything... except for isolating the participants... anyways, fuck it, I'm goin to sleep.
| |||||||
|
moonrockmushy High on Spite  Registered: 07/01/05 Posts: 19,071 |
| ||||||
|
I think a holistic approach where the body is treated as a whole is the major thing that is lacking in modern medical care. It is just assumed that people are going to live somewhat unhealthy lifestyles and people rely on doctors to prescribe drugs to treat specific symptoms.
There are people everywhere who put financial gain above the overall well-being of patients, this has become obvious in certain aspects of modern medicine where they will invent reasons to give you overpriced drugs. Natural medicine seems more apt to claim miraculous healing powers in order to make a quick buck before the next fad takes hold. This is not really what natural medicine is about. I think any study which tries to narrow down "natural medicine" to a labratory setting and compare it to "modern medicine" will not be getting the whole picture. There is not any one standard of natural remidies, and unlike a clinical study, it is supposed to be tailored to an individual, not a cure-all for a specific problem. My intuition tells me that the acid-alkaline thing is mostly BS, but I don't know. I think it would be a mistake to draw conclusions about natural vs. modern meds based on this alone, but you could certainly show if it is better/worse than a pacebo for a specific problem. To me it would get too complicated trying to prove more than that, KISS 
| |||||||
|
Anonymous #1 |
| ||||||
|
. Edited by Anonymous (04/19/12 02:58 PM)
| |||||||
|
Anonymous #1 |
| ||||||
|
.
Edited by Anonymous (04/19/12 03:00 PM)
| |||||||
|
Heruuka member Registered: 10/16/99 Posts: 342 |
| ||||||
|
Hey Cateyes. First, thanks for taking the time to read and address everything. Second, I'm really pressed for time and this is a huge distraction, so I dont have the time to edit this, so if I say anything that seems really inflammatory, its not intentional. I am interested mostly in trying to understand where your faith in alternative medicines comes from, when you are obviously very skeptical of conventional medicine and the medical science community. Any generalizations I make about about what you said are to try and flush out where this trust comes from.
I'd just like to distill a few of your comments into a central theme, that i believe to be completely the fault of conventional medicine and at the root of its growing irrelevancy. I'm going to draw conclusions and make assumptions based on what you said, please correct me if you think I have it wrong. Your personal experiences with conventional medicine, or the ones that stand out when you think of it, are with psychiatry and oncology. Mental health and cancer are the least understood of all branches of modern medicine. I was talking with a shrink (with over 30yrs in the field, schizophrenia mostly) the other day and he pointed out that psychiatric medication hadn't seen any REAL developments in the past 50 yrs. The only significant development has been in making more tolerable/specific versions of existing compounds, and of course you can make the argument that this is solely profit driven. At the same time, the mainstays of cancer treatment haven't changed much either. Just the idea of conquering cancer is absurd; cancer is a disease of self, of nonfunctional replication regulation. It will always be a problem, especially as our population lives longer. So neither of these fields are all that impressive in terms of arguments for conventional medicine, in that they're both developing fields with LOTS of room for improvement. I think that the lack of success you've seen conventional medicine have in treating people close to you, as well as your own experiences, have caused you to lose faith in the system as a whole. Something to keep in mind here, is that your sample size is very small. I'm not discounting it, I think this is a common experience for people, but the problem I have with it is that people tend to remember and focus on the negative outcomes (especially deaths) and not the successes. I'd like to discuss everything you said but I'm running into a deadline for this thing and have to get back to work (on fucking New Years, no less - where has all the fun gone?). I think that conventional medicine is to blame for people's lost faith in it. A very specific and important thing you pointed out was the amount of time the doctors actually spent with you (minimal, if not completely inadequate), also that MD's treat symptoms and bodies as opposed to people. The overburdening of the system (metro GP with 3-5K patients) has turned MDs into diagnostic machines, often overlooking simple problems (like your deficiencies and heavy metal exposure) because they're focused on relieving symptoms. On top of this, clinicians tend to be stressed (at least around here) and are usually terrible at interacting with people. Interpersonal skill is not a focus of conventional medicine, even though good doctors know that one of the most important factors in predicting a good outcome for a patient is the attitude the patient has toward their clinician and the treatment they prescribe. I think the faith that a patient has that they're being treated competently, comes from how compassionately and confidently that treatment is described and delivered. This is true of all the healing practices; people need to feel like their illness is in good and caring hands. A point where conventional medicine falls down. A common thread in your criticisms is that you're asking for proof that the natural therapy DOESN't work, and essentially asking for proof that conventional medicine ISN'T corrupt and broken. Do you notice that you don't put the same burden of proof on holistic medicine as you do on conventional medicine? I don't want to draw too many comparisons, but its the same reasoning that people use to justify their belief in God or creationism, i.e. "Prove that God doesn't exist, or that creationism isn't a possible explanation, and I'll stop believing". I admire the trust that you have in holistic practice, and why shouldn't you trust it? its never HURT you, its helped you in your personal medical struggles, the clinicians make a point of caring for you as a person, take their time, and use absolute language like "your conidition is caused by..." which is a certainty that you rarely get from 'allopathic' medicine. The problem with this is it also doesn't offer much in the way of proof or explanation for the reasons why it appears to work. When asked for scientific data, proponents or marketers of alternative therapies cite that it either cannot be simplified/reduced/whatever in order to be measured, or they claim corruption and dismiss science as tainted and unworthy. If science is used, often its in the form of single scientists with either unsubstantiated claims or claims that haven't stood the tests of time and peer scrutiny. Again, the reasons for defending the validity of these claims are that they were the one voice in the darkness of corruption, and their claims ran too strongly against current and were smeared/discounted unfairly. I find it interesting that people will talk of an individual's theories and their scientific credentials, and use it as argument against the collected body of tested knowledge of thousands of similarly talented people. It shows a great distrust for institutions as a whole, in favour of having faith in individuals, especially underdogs. Even though there is no scientific "establishment"(scientific advancement is achieved through disproving current notions, so dissent is the primary mechanism of scientific evolution), people will often talk about science like it has some agenda when they're defending holistic medicine. I personally wouldn't trust any company with my health. This is one of the fundamental reasons why there has been a move to regulate supplements; the substances need to be standardized and tested for harmful impurities. I don't trust a mineral supplement from a company that claims to sell natural compounds, just because of the company they keep- I want to know how much arsenic, mercury etc there is in it (cause there's always a little As), regardless of who's selling it. Its interesting that you are rightly skeptical of the motives of pharmaceutical companies, but not similarly skeptical of supplements or the companies that distribute them. Again, you are very "us vs them" between holistic medicines and pharmaceuticals - you're offended by regulation/standardization of natural medicines and instantly assume that its some sinister plot of the pharmaceutical giants. If you're being objective about this, do you have any reason to assume that naturpathic companies are any different, in their credibility or by any standard, from big pharma? Argh. Having trouble being concise tonight. Recapping, here's how I interpret what you've said in relation to how you perceive conventional and alternative practices: You were personally failed by conventional medicine, where alternative clinicians saved you. You see people around you dying under the care of MD's, of diseases that alt medicine (AM) has claimed to cure. You see lots of information about how corrupt pharmaceutical companies are... I'm assuming that you don't tar AM companies with the same brush, even with its own stories of snake-oil salesmen, because you think of each provider and method as separate, so if one is a con-man, it doesn't mean another is. You think of the pharmaceutical companies and medical system as a singular apparatus that isn't to be trusted, while 'AM' as an all-too-narrow term for a rich and reliable group of therapies. You support arguments for AM through your distrust in conventional medicine, and your faith in claims made by AM practitioners that aren't usually supported by anything more than anecdotal evidence (as scientific tests are either invalid or can't be trusted, for reasons already described). Interestingly, you also cite the age of scientific findings to either condemn them as being too old ("...IgE developed in the 1930's... this is how fucking ass backwards allopathic medicine is...") or to support a theory as being lost or buried intentionally to protect profits (the linus pauling example). All told, you're making a faith-based claim for AM, against conventional medicine. I don't mean to be too reductionist about it, I'm just trying to understand where the faith comes from, since it isn't rooted in science. My personal opinion is that anyone that makes any claim should be required to provide statistically viable data to support that claim before making any pronouncements that could affect the health of others. I think that people will always lean towards making a profit when the choice is between that and telling the truth. I don't trust pharm companies, but I don't trust holistic medicine either. I don't give any credit to practitioners who use unscientific proof to support their claims, or smear their competitors. I also don't have faith in any method, individual, or company; its far too generous and dangerous to believe that a person's motivations are virtuous. Altruism is exceptional, not fundamental. To briefly address your scientific questions (wikipedia is a much better source). Yes, the overall metabolic process of the cell involves the production of acid (carbonic acid, if we're talking about complete breakdown). Thing is, your body uses 'acids' as fundamental building blocks of tissue, mostly because they're easy to move around (soluble) and provide chemically convenient starting materials (react easily, etc). Most of these acids are carboxylic acids which are usually close to their pKa around physiological pH, which depends on tissue type/location. This means that they're easily converted between their charged (BASE) and non-charged states (ACID), which your body exploits for controlling enymatic reactions and for selectivity (different acids have different pKa's, so are in different states/ionized at different pH's, making them easier to 'sort' in the cell). An important distinction here is that a weak acid (as all but stomach acids in the body are), is always in equilibrium with its conjugate base, that is, the ratio of the concentration of ACID-H(not charged)/BASE-(NEG charge) is proportional to the pH. So around the body's pH these acids behave as acid OR base depending on what form the cell needs them in. Acid and conjugate base have different solubilities and chemical properties, so being able to inter-convert between the two states gives the system flexibility by effectively adding switches to chemical reactions. Your body has such a massive buffering capacity (through proteins like albumin, Ion balance, carbonate system, the list goes on and on) because acids/bases are your body's structural currency, and have predictable chemistry at a specific pH, so it needs to be maintained and controlled. pH affects and is affected by essentially every reaction in the cell, in one way or another. When you look at the body as a whole, its more like one of those kinetic-ball-sculpture things than your chimney example- your body needs and uses the byproducts and intermediates of metabolism to maintain a constant state, and has amazing internal capacity to adjust for any shifts by increasing or decreasing throughput... sort of analogous to how the height that you hold the first ball at is proportional to how high the one at the end flies up- the balls in the middle aren't affected. Yes, urine pH changes with diet, related to the nutritional composition of the food you eat, but changing that pH doesn't necessarily reflect a state of health any more than the height of the last ball reflects the state of the balls in the middle. This isn't the best explanation or example but it'll do. Is there a burden placed on the body depending on your diet? Absolutely. Certain nutrients are required for the absorption of others, and vitamins (inc. vit D, which is really more of a hormone) in sufficient quantities put less stress on the synthetic/degratory (anabolic/catabolic) machinery than when there's a deficiency. To say that this is all caused by pH, though, is oversimplifying things. The "alkalizing" food list generally contains vitamin rich, low caloric density, complex foods that support the body systems, while the "acid" list is dominated by things that are energy dense, vitamin deficient, and simple. Also included in the acid list are any substances that put strain on the body specific body systems (heavy metals, pharmaceuticals). The effects that these substances have is wayyy more complicated than acid/base balance. Essentially, this alkalizing diet works because it is balanced and vitamin rich (leafy greens)- any affect on pH is either incidental, or, an indicator of physiological activity which isn't necessarily bad. Urine pH changes might indicate an increased 'load' on your body, but the levels monitored (i don't have my ref intervals handy, but exact values aren't important here - I can discuss them if you disagree) by this diet are WITHIN the normal reference ranges discussed in a conventional setting, which are already very narrow. Also, since it is close to neutral pH, minuscule changes in H+ concentration will cause visible changes in pH (any deeper requires explanation of acid/base theory) This means that measurable changes in urine pH can be caused by tiny changes in the composition of the urine, which could be caused by increased physiological load or could be as insignificant as individual genetic variability. After all, reference intervals are defined BY MEASURING healthy/normal individuals (mean +- 2 SD), within a patient set based on age, gender, or whatever criteria might define different populations of healthy individuals. The arguments for the acid-base balancing stuff I've heard are that conventional medicine defines its reference intervals of urine pH by the line between normal and disease states, while within those broader ranges, there is a narrower spectrum from unhealthy to optimal health. I don't think there's any way to disprove this, since urine pH is affected by so many different internal processes, but there's certainly no way to prove it, and it is more in keeping with the flexibility designed into our bodies, and our ability as a species to live in such varied climates/conditions and on such varied diets, that fluctuating urine pH is just that. Its like saying that monitoring engine RPM within a range of +-100 RPM at 4000 RPM is a good indicator of the overall health of the engine, and that within that range there is a specific RPM that is optimal... it could be true, but does it seem reasonable? Significant? Cheers... happy 2012 too! fucking school...
| |||||||
|
Anonymous #1 |
| ||||||
|
.
Edited by Anonymous (04/19/12 03:04 PM)
| |||||||
|
Anonymous #1 |
| ||||||
|
.
Edited by Anonymous (04/19/12 03:05 PM)
| |||||||
|
Heruuka member Registered: 10/16/99 Posts: 342 |
| ||||||
|
I dont have enough time to respond to your post right now but I will add some more thoughts to the pH issue.
What I meant was that since the kidney acts as one of the body's ways of maintaining a steady state, its output will change in order to maintain that. It doesn't mean that there's an underlying disease. Making conclusions based on urine pH, in isolation, is a lot like saying that you can determine the health of an engine based only on its RPM, but because we understand engines more than physiology, we know that this is overly simplistic. The engine, like the body, is dynamic and its speed depends on a lot of different things (fuel quality, type, and availability; accelerator; load; exhaust pressure etc)... although the RPM correlate when there are problems, taken alone, the RPM is not significant because it doesn't a complete picture of the engine. Just because diet affects the pH of urine, doesn't mean that the change is necessarily a bad thing. Yes, urine pH changes that are OUTSIDE the reference interval (remember that the change spoken of in this diet are within the clinical healthy range) are seen in disease states, but that doesn't mean that smaller changes in the direction that we'd expect for major pathology, indicate similar problems. The human body is adaptable by design. We can survive virtually anywhere on the planet, eating nothing but seal meat and fish in the north and eating a more gatherer type diet further south. Our bodies have evolved to be able to thrive even when our diet switches from summer to winter food sources. Part of the mechanism of this flexibility is the massive capacity for our body to tolerate changes in nutritional composition without it causing a similar change in the extracellular fluid composition at the tissue level. The problem with discussing this in a concrete way is that there are a few different ways of defining acids and bases. pH is the -log of the hydronium (H30+) ion concentration, but acids as biochemical components are usually defined as "proton donors" and bases as "proton acceptors", or even further that "acidic groups become charge in more basic environments, and bases become charge in more acidic environments" and proteins have both acidic and basic groups, which gives them their buffering capacity... these different definitions have different implications for the roles of acids and bases in physiology, or homeostasis. Saying that slight shifts in urine pH mean that your body is being harmed, is like suggesting that pushing the gas pedal just a little, and increasing engine speed is directly harmful to the engine; the extreme of this is true (red-lining), but the engine is designed to be robust enough to operate at different speeds because its expected to operate well in a variety of conditions. The same is true for our bodies. Urine pH does provide a valuable tool for monitoring and diagnosing disease in the presence of other symptoms, but on its own, and within such a narrow range, it doesn't indicate that the body is in duress, just that its working. The alkalizing thing may MAY be right, but there is absolutely no reason to suggest that it is. The evidence that this diet provides is that urine pH has some correlation with what we understand to be an unhealthy diet, but what makes that diet ultimately unhealthy has nothing to do with pH.
| |||||||
|
Heruuka member Registered: 10/16/99 Posts: 342 |
| ||||||
|
Also, to quickly point something out: my motivation in defending the side that I am is not because I believe in it. I'm doing all of this to learn. Wherever there is an opinion that can be supported by fact or logic, I'll listen to it, especially if its going to make me more effective at what I do in the future.
I really do appreciate the time you've invested in this, and i hope that my tone comes across as curiosity instead of judgment or arrogance. I don't know that i'm right about any of my beliefs or understanding, its just my own perception based on what has been put in front of me- to each their own. cheers
| |||||||
|
Anonymous #1 |
| ||||||
|
.
Edited by Anonymous (04/19/12 03:06 PM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale Cultivation Supplies Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck Bulk Cannabis Seeds |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Lost my faith tonight... (  1 2 all ) |
 Alobar |
4,249 | 22 | 04/18/03 01:13 AM by Dreamer987 |
|
|
fuck logic fuck faith |  shaggy101 |
1,924 | 10 | 08/09/03 02:11 AM by tak |
|
|
I have lost faith in the world *DELETED* |  Earth_Droid |
1,186 | 8 | 08/27/03 05:38 PM by wrestler_az |
|
|
Mushroom Side effects? |  Cyber |
1,543 | 10 | 10/31/04 09:35 PM by Cyber |
|
 |
Improve your mental well-being the natural way ( 1 2 3 all ) |
Shroomism |
8,212 | 40 | 12/01/04 01:06 PM by Jalruza |
|
|
Uhh, I have really bad ADD and I'd like some advice. |  RedNucleus |
3,106 | 19 | 11/12/03 01:44 AM by Kremlin |
|
|
Pleurisy |  FurrySheep |
1,377 | 14 | 09/04/11 07:33 AM by Anonymous |
|
|
results of battling out my social anxiety..... |  shr00m |
3,005 | 10 | 08/18/13 03:36 PM by nhmi |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: CherryBom, Asante, Rose, mndfreeze, yogabunny, feevers, CookieCrumbs, Northerner 2,432 topic views. 0 members, 9 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||