Altie AIDS cure?

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Soft-Eng, Feb 11, 2004.



  1. Soft-Eng

    Soft-Eng Guest

  2. Ilsa9

    Ilsa9 Guest

    >[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote in message
    >news:<[email protected]>...
    >> http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2002_1113_01.htm
    >
    >What, no debunkers yet?
    >
    >Some people on this ng are not earning their keep! What if this takes off and cheap coconuts, of
    >all things, take away multi-billion dollar opportunities?
    >
    >

    To quote Snoop Dogg, "Make it Happen', Cap'n"

    Show us the cure. It would be a boon to mankind.

    Otherwise, its Health Pornography, an offense to all mankind.
     
  3. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    soft-eng <[email protected]> wrote:
    >[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote in message
    >news:<[email protected]>...
    >> http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2002_1113_01.htm
    >
    >What, no debunkers yet?

    Nobody here is obligated to respond to you, bub. What are you, a frustrated troll?

    >Some people on this ng are not earning their keep! What if this takes off and cheap coconuts, of
    >all things, take away multi-billion dollar opportunities?

    Then we should all go long on coconut oil futures.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
    correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  4. Soft-Eng

    Soft-Eng Guest

    [email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > In article <[email protected]>, soft-eng
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote in message
    > >news:<[email protected]>...
    > >> http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2002_1113_01.htm
    > >
    > >What, no debunkers yet?
    >
    > Nobody here is obligated to respond to you, bub. What are you, a frustrated troll?

    If somebody is looking around for "alternative" treatments for "aids", I wouldn't want the "coconut"
    theory to be missed. (Unless, of course, it's been proven incorrect.)

    Thanks for lenghthening the thread.

    > >Some people on this ng are not earning their keep! What if this takes off and cheap coconuts, of
    > >all things, take away multi-billion dollar opportunities?
    >
    > Then we should all go long on coconut oil futures.
    >
    > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
    > always correct.

    Uh, huh.

    > "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    > were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

    Midgets mistaking other midgets for giants. Newton's "giants" were something else altogether from a
    different era, not minor pathetic LPU-hackers.
     
  5. Mark

    Mark Guest

  6. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Altie AIDS cure?
    >From: [email protected] (Mark)
    >Date: 2/13/2004 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote in message
    >news:<[email protected]>...
    >> http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2002_1113_01.htm
    >
    >
    >I'd love to see it work. Let's have them do a study, expose their methods to scrutiny and we'll
    >see. New approaches to all sorts of medical conditions are tried all the time; the ones which
    >refuse to allow outside scrutiny are the ones that get vilified.
    >
    >Mark, MD

    Translation:

    If organized medicine didn't find it, it won't see the light of day.

    In the meantime, poeple may use it with success, then it will be claimed a placebo.

    Those who have used it with success, could care less about the EGO of organized medicine.

    Jan
     
  7. Wb

    Wb Guest

    On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:52:23 GMT, [email protected] (David Wright) wrote:

    >Then we should all go long on coconut oil futures.
    >
    > -- David Wright

    And short pork bellies ?
    --

    "I can dance on the head of a pin as well"
    -Yoshimo
     
  8. Mark

    Mark Guest

    [email protected] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >Subject: Re: Altie AIDS cure? From: [email protected] (Mark) Date: 2/13/2004 9:47 AM Pacific
    > >Standard Time Message-id: <[email protected]>
    > >
    > >[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote in message
    > >news:<[email protected]>...
    > >> http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2002_1113_01.htm
    > >
    > >
    > >I'd love to see it work. Let's have them do a study, expose their methods to scrutiny and we'll
    > >see. New approaches to all sorts of medical conditions are tried all the time; the ones which
    > >refuse to allow outside scrutiny are the ones that get vilified.
    > >
    > >Mark, MD
    >
    > Translation:
    >
    > If organized medicine didn't find it, it won't see the light of day.
    >
    > In the meantime, poeple may use it with success, then it will be claimed a placebo.
    >
    > Those who have used it with success, could care less about the EGO of organized medicine.
    >
    > Jan

    Wrong again, babycakes. EOM doesn't care who thought it up first, only that it can be verified and
    replicated. St. John's Wort and feverfew are just two of the "alt" remedies that conventional docs
    are willing to explore suggesting to their patients because solid evidence (chiefly from the German
    Commission E) suggests a useful role. I myself have suggested alfalfa tea to breastfeeding Moms who
    are having trouble keeping their milk production up; I based my decision on several good studies I
    have read after finding them on the NLM's website...and I didn't lose a wink of sleep weeping over
    Big Pharma's loss of revenue by having my patients' Mommies using herbal remedies instead of pills.

    Five years ago, I suspect conventional medicine wouldn't have given the time of day to SJW, but
    studies, scrutiny and replicability have changed minds. That's the key.

    Fifteen years ago, those advocating a role for acupuncture would have been looked upon as fringy crystal-
    waver types, but now, thanks to good studies and professional scrutiny, acupuncture is being used
    more and more commonly as an adjunct and even a first-line therapy.

    I don't think you understand that EOM needs data before leaping to embrace any particular therapy.
    As long as Alt practitioners refuse to subject their methods to scrutiny, they'll be looked upon
    skeptically. If they are open, and if peer-review verifies their claimed results, everyone rejoices
    and a new therapy makes its way into widespread use.

    Think about it: if Hulda Clark can really cure AIDS with her herbs, diets and Zapper treatments,
    don't you think she'd be happy to let fellow researchers have a look into her methods and records? I
    mean, all she has to do is produce a half-dozen "cures", and a GREAT BIG ball gets rolling. She'd
    get a Nobel Prize, invitations to teach at any research facility in the world, and there'd be a
    Hulda Clark wing on every hospital in every major metropolitan area in the world. She'd be the next
    Albert Schwietzer, for crying out loud!

    Hulda isn't looked upon as a charlatan because she's outside the mainstream; she's a charlatan
    because she can't/won't verify her results, yet she keeps claiming "cures" and she keeps milking
    desperate people out of thousands of dollars apiece.

    I hope this coconut oil thing works, but unless it can be verified and replicated, no one is going
    to buy it...no one serious, at least.

    Mark, MD
     
  9. Orac

    Orac Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (David Wright) wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, soft-eng
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >[email protected] (soft-eng) wrote in message
    > >news:<[email protected]>...
    > >> http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2002_1113_01.htm
    > >
    > >What, no debunkers yet?
    >
    > Nobody here is obligated to respond to you, bub. What are you, a frustrated troll?

    Looks like it. No one responded as he wished, so he added more.

    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
     
  10. Soft-Eng

    Soft-Eng Guest

    [email protected] (Mark) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Wrong again, babycakes. EOM doesn't care who thought it up first, only that it can be verified and
    > replicated. St. John's Wort and feverfew are just two of the "alt" remedies that conventional docs
    > are willing to explore suggesting to their patients because solid evidence (chiefly from the
    > German Commission E) suggests a useful role. I myself have suggested alfalfa tea to breastfeeding
    > Moms who are having trouble keeping their milk production up; I based my decision on several good
    > studies I have read after finding them on the NLM's website...and I didn't lose a wink of sleep
    > weeping over Big Pharma's loss of revenue by having my patients' Mommies using herbal remedies
    > instead of pills.

    That's commendable.

    Professionals of course can't say "this will help you" if there is no clear proof it will.

    But there is another simple common sense logic "is it going to hurt me?"

    Coconuts are known to humankind for a VERY long time. It is 100% certain that they do not cause
    toxic reactions. (Well, no double-blind studies exist, however for those who can accept reasonable
    logic, this is a valid conclusion.)

    As such, someone suffering from AIDS has nothing to lose, and possibly something to gain, by doing a
    trial on themselves, and eating coconuts for a period of time.

    The logic has been put forth, according to which, someone eating coconuts for AIDS is forced to stop
    using other brands of therapy. That's nonsense. There is nothing forcing a patient to stop
    conventional medicine when eating coconuts. So it's possible that such "logic" comes from people
    subconsciously fearful that the alternative medicine might _succeed_.
     
  11. Orac

    Orac Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (soft-eng) wrote:

    > Thanks for lenghthening the thread.

    Sounds like something a troll would say.

    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
     
  12. Orac

    Orac Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (soft-eng) wrote:

    > [email protected] (Mark) wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > > Wrong again, babycakes. EOM doesn't care who thought it up first, only that it can be verified
    > > and replicated. St. John's Wort and feverfew are just two of the "alt" remedies that
    > > conventional docs are willing to explore suggesting to their patients because solid evidence
    > > (chiefly from the German Commission E) suggests a useful role. I myself have suggested alfalfa
    > > tea to breastfeeding Moms who are having trouble keeping their milk production up; I based my
    > > decision on several good studies I have read after finding them on the NLM's website...and I
    > > didn't lose a wink of sleep weeping over Big Pharma's loss of revenue by having my patients'
    > > Mommies using herbal remedies instead of pills.
    >
    > That's commendable.
    >
    > Professionals of course can't say "this will help you" if there is no clear proof it will.

    Good of you to recognize that. Too bad all too many alties refuse to acknowledge this principle.

    > But there is another simple common sense logic "is it going to hurt me?"

    It depends on what you mean by "hurt." If you choose a "remedy" with "no clear proof it will help"
    over one that does have proof it will help, then, yes, even very benign treatments can "hurt" you by
    keeping you from effective treatment.

    > Coconuts are known to humankind for a VERY long time. It is 100% certain that they do not cause
    > toxic reactions.

    Wrong. Very wrong. There is a small percentage of people who can have life-threatening anaphylactic
    reactions to coconuts. Such allergic reactions are much less common than, say, peanut allergies, but
    they do exist. Even though they are fairly rare, they disprove your contention that it is "100%
    certain" that coconuts "do not cause toxic reactions."

    > (Well, no double-blind studies exist, however for those who can accept reasonable logic, this is a
    > valid conclusion.)

    Not necessarily, since you can't even get your information right.

    > As such, someone suffering from AIDS has nothing to lose, and possibly something to gain, by doing
    > a trial on themselves, and eating coconuts for a period of time.

    Not if he or she forgoes protease inhibitors and antiretroviral drugs that have proven efficacy
    and have lead to four-fold or more increase in expected survival for patients suffering from full-
    blown AIDS.

    > The logic has been put forth, according to which, someone eating coconuts for AIDS is forced to
    > stop using other brands of therapy. That's nonsense. There is nothing forcing a patient to stop
    > conventional medicine when eating coconuts. So it's possible that such "logic" comes from people
    > subconsciously fearful that the alternative medicine might _succeed_.

    I doubt most doctors would be too concerned if patient decided to eat lots of coconuts (assuming
    there is no evidence existing to say that something in coconuts interfered with conventional
    therapy), as long as that patient didn't forgo his regular therapy for cancer, AIDS, or whatever.
    (Some herbal remedies interact with drugs, such as the ginseng/warfarin interaction, etc.) However,
    we know that there are always a number of patients who DO forgo conventional therapy in favor of
    such unknown and unproven "treatments." One of the memories of residency that most stands out to me
    is of a patient who had an early stage rectal cancer that would have had a high probability of cure
    with surgery and radiation, who instead opted for coffee enemas and megadoses of carrot juice. He
    came back a year later, his skin yellowish-orange, and his tumor much more advanced, so that anal
    sphincter-sparing surgery was no longer possible. At the very best, he bought himself a permanent
    colostomy through his decision; at the worst, his faith in alternative medicine cost him his life. I
    don't know which, because the last time I saw him was only a couple of months before the end of my
    residency and my move to another city.

    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
     
  13. Michele

    Michele Guest

    [email protected] (soft-eng) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > [email protected] (Mark) wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > > Wrong again, babycakes. EOM doesn't care who thought it up first, only that it can be verified
    > > and replicated. St. John's Wort and feverfew are just two of the "alt" remedies that
    > > conventional docs are willing to explore suggesting to their patients because solid evidence
    > > (chiefly from the German Commission E) suggests a useful role. I myself have suggested alfalfa
    > > tea to breastfeeding Moms who are having trouble keeping their milk production up; I based my
    > > decision on several good studies I have read after finding them on the NLM's website...and I
    > > didn't lose a wink of sleep weeping over Big Pharma's loss of revenue by having my patients'
    > > Mommies using herbal remedies instead of pills.
    >
    > That's commendable.
    >
    > Professionals of course can't say "this will help you" if there is no clear proof it will.
    >
    > But there is another simple common sense logic "is it going to hurt me?"
    >
    > Coconuts are known to humankind for a VERY long time. It is 100% certain that they do not cause
    > toxic reactions. (Well, no double-blind studies exist, however for those who can accept reasonable
    > logic, this is a valid conclusion.)
    >
    > As such, someone suffering from AIDS has nothing to lose, and possibly something to gain, by doing
    > a trial on themselves, and eating coconuts for a period of time.
    >
    > The logic has been put forth, according to which, someone eating coconuts for AIDS is forced to
    > stop using other brands of therapy. That's nonsense. There is nothing forcing a patient to stop
    > conventional medicine when eating coconuts. So it's possible that such "logic" comes from people
    > subconsciously fearful that the alternative medicine might _succeed_.

    It's not a matter of anyone being *forced* to discontinue (or denied the opportunity to try) other
    therapies for AIDS -- it's the unfortunate tendency for patients to pin their hopes on a promised
    cure to the exclusion of other treatments that have been shown to have some benefit. If patients are
    *strongly* encouraged (by their docs, families, & those advocating alt. therapy ideas) to utilize
    the alt. treatments *along with* more conventional ones, I doubt many mainstream health care
    providers would have *any* objection or negative views about adding a harmless (& possibly
    beneficial) thing like eating coconuts, taking vitamins, or other alt. approaches to treating AIDS.
     
  14. Soft-Eng

    Soft-Eng Guest

    Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > > Coconuts are known to humankind for a VERY long time. It is 100% certain that they do not cause
    > > toxic reactions.
    >
    > Wrong. Very wrong. There is a small percentage of people who can have life-threatening
    > anaphylactic reactions to coconuts. Such allergic reactions are much less common than, say, peanut
    > allergies, but they do exist. Even though they are fairly rare, they disprove your contention that
    > it is "100% certain" that coconuts "do not cause toxic reactions."

    That's rather extreme -- almost any medication you can prescribe has more chances of a reaction. So
    applying this kind of logic makes no sense.

    > > The logic has been put forth, according to which, someone eating coconuts for AIDS is forced to
    > > stop using other brands of therapy. That's nonsense. There is nothing forcing a patient to stop
    > > conventional medicine when eating coconuts. So it's possible that such "logic" comes from people
    > > subconsciously fearful that the alternative medicine might _succeed_.
    >
    > I doubt most doctors would be too concerned if patient decided to eat lots of coconuts (assuming
    > there is no evidence existing to say that

    You sure?

    People get into fits (right here in this ng) over suggestions that various non-standard remedies MAY
    be effective!

    > colostomy through his decision; at the worst, his faith in alternative medicine cost him his life.
    > I don't know which, because the last time I

    As opposed to blind faith in conventional medicine, which has cost no lives, no unnecessary
    traumatic surgeries, no deaths due to adverse reactions?
     
  15. Soft-Eng

    Soft-Eng Guest

    [email protected] (Michele) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > > The logic has been put forth, according to which, someone eating coconuts for AIDS is forced to
    > > stop using other brands of therapy. That's nonsense. There is nothing forcing a patient to stop
    > > conventional medicine when eating coconuts. So it's possible that such "logic" comes from people
    > > subconsciously fearful that the alternative medicine might _succeed_.
    >
    > It's not a matter of anyone being *forced* to discontinue (or denied the opportunity to try)
    > other therapies for AIDS -- it's the unfortunate tendency for patients to pin their hopes on a
    > promised cure to the exclusion of other treatments that have been shown to have some benefit. If
    > patients are *strongly* encouraged (by their docs, families, & those advocating alt. therapy
    > ideas) to utilize the alt. treatments *along with* more conventional ones, I doubt many
    > mainstream health care providers would have *any* objection or negative views about adding a
    > harmless (& possibly beneficial) thing like eating coconuts, taking vitamins, or other alt.
    > approaches to treating AIDS.

    I agree that's the most sensible approach. There is an unfortunate tendency amongs conventional
    practitioners to see "alties" as enemies, and vice versa.

    Fact is, conventional medicine has recourse to a very wide range of proven therapeutic solutions.
    Even though it has lately caught a little darkness of the heart, courtesy of Mammon, there are
    centuries of excellent practice behind it. And lots of motivated people. So it is very valuable.

    But alternative medicine is also very valuable. It is the only way left to explore non-money-
    making solutions. When it costs nearly a billion dollars to introduce a new medication, what
    pharma is going to invest in, of all things, coconuts? In fact, given the existing investment in
    non-coconut remedies, what pharma with good business sense is going to _tolerate_ coconuts? And
    how many practitioners get their knowledge from sources other than those that are pharma-supplied
    and approved?

    So alternative therapists are providing an extremely valuable function, they should not be
    denigrated as a matter of knee-jerk reaction.
     
  16. Orac

    Orac Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (soft-eng) wrote:

    > Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > > > Coconuts are known to humankind for a VERY long time. It is 100% certain that they do not
    > > > cause toxic reactions.
    > >
    > > Wrong. Very wrong. There is a small percentage of people who can have life-threatening
    > > anaphylactic reactions to coconuts. Such allergic reactions are much less common than, say,
    > > peanut allergies, but they do exist. Even though they are fairly rare, they disprove your
    > > contention that it is "100% certain" that coconuts "do not cause toxic reactions."
    >
    > That's rather extreme -- almost any medication you can prescribe has more chances of a reaction.
    > So applying this kind of logic makes no sense.

    You protest too much. After all, I'm not the one who made an absolute statement. You are. You're the
    one who said that it's "100%" certain that there are no "toxic reactions" to coconuts. I simply
    pointed out to you that you are wrong. If you don't want to open yourself up to such easy rebuttals,
    don't use such absolute terms, like "100% certain." Really, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

    > > > The logic has been put forth, according to which, someone eating coconuts for AIDS is forced
    > > > to stop using other brands of therapy. That's nonsense. There is nothing forcing a patient to
    > > > stop conventional medicine when eating coconuts. So it's possible that such "logic" comes from
    > > > people subconsciously fearful that the alternative medicine might _succeed_.
    > >
    > > I doubt most doctors would be too concerned if patient decided to eat lots of coconuts (assuming
    > > there is no evidence existing to say that
    >
    > You sure?

    Yep.

    > People get into fits (right here in this ng) over suggestions that various non-standard remedies
    > MAY be effective!

    No, we merely point out when appropriate that there is no convincing scientific or clinical evidence
    that they are. Indeed, it is really you altieswho get into fits, but the fits are over suggestions
    that, maybe, just maybe, some good scientific evidence for efficacy would be nice to have before
    adopting an "alternative" remedy or suggestions that probably your favorite remedy of the hour is
    not effective. Heck, the moderators kick people off the CureZone message boards for such statements!

    > > colostomy through his decision; at the worst, his faith in alternative medicine cost him his
    > > life. I don't know which, because the last time I
    >
    > As opposed to blind faith in conventional medicine, which has cost no lives, no unnecessary
    > traumatic surgeries, no deaths due to adverse reactions?

    If you're going to use that sort of fallacious reasoning, then don't forget to point out how many
    lives conventional medicine has saved relative to "alternative" medicine.

    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
     
  17. Anth

    Anth Guest

    ...Oh the hypocrisy... Anth

    "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]
    ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    > You protest too much. After all, I'm not the one who made an absolute statement. You are. You're
    > the one who said that it's "100%" certain that there are no "toxic reactions" to coconuts. I
    > simply pointed out to you that you are wrong. If you don't want to open yourself up to such easy
    > rebuttals, don't use such absolute terms, like "100% certain." Really, it's like shooting fish in
    > a barrel.
     
  18. Soft-Eng

    Soft-Eng Guest

    Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > You protest too much. After all, I'm not the one who made an absolute statement. You are. You're
    > the one who said that it's "100%" certain

    You forget, I am the one who uses "reasonable" logic.

    > that there are no "toxic reactions" to coconuts. I simply pointed out to you that you are wrong.
    > If you don't want to open yourself up to such easy rebuttals, don't use such absolute terms, like
    > "100% certain." Really, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Nonsense. You need to understand contexts.

    It is "100% certain", in the context. The objection you use is known as "nit-picking", and this
    class of objections are useless and irrelevant to the actual logical discourse.

    (In a mathematical or logical proof, nitpicks would be quite relevant, actually. When applying to
    real-world situations, the entire context is relevant, therefore the nit-picks are irrelevant.)

    > > People get into fits (right here in this ng) over suggestions that various non-standard remedies
    > > MAY be effective!
    >
    > No, we merely point out when appropriate that there is no convincing

    I suggest you read some actual posts. I did not use the term "fits" lightly. To an unbiased
    observer, it would appear I used a very mild term, in fact.

    > > As opposed to blind faith in conventional medicine, which has cost no lives, no unnecessary
    > > traumatic surgeries, no deaths due to adverse reactions?
    >
    > If you're going to use that sort of fallacious reasoning, then don't

    What fallacy?

    > forget to point out how many lives conventional medicine has saved relative to "alternative"
    > medicine.

    Sure. Washing hands prior to surgery was "alternative", Pasteur was "alternative"... You wanna start
    the counting?

    I never said conventional medicines has not saved lives, of course it has. Otoh, your anecdote was
    merely a personal anecdote which ignored the wider context, hence I was pointing out the wider
    context to you.
     
  19. Orac

    Orac Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > ...Oh the hypocrisy... Anth

    Why are you accusing soft-eng of hypocrisy? Geez, even I don't do that. I consider him misguided a
    lot of the time and often too quick to believe unsupported alt-med claims, but not a hypocrite.

    > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]
    > ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    > > You protest too much. After all, I'm not the one who made an absolute statement. You are. You're
    > > the one who said that it's "100%" certain that there are no "toxic reactions" to coconuts. I
    > > simply pointed out to you that you are wrong. If you don't want to open yourself up to such easy
    > > rebuttals, don't use such absolute terms, like "100% certain." Really, it's like shooting fish
    > > in a barrel.

    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
     
Loading...