Doctor Issues Vaccine Manifesto in "Pediatrics": Refuse Care if Parents Question Vaccines

[mhatrw]

http://www.todaystmj4.com/features/yourhealth/115528729.html

Some doctors are now taking a stand--refusing to treat young patients who have not been vaccinated. Doctors say it's an effort to encourage good health, and keep their waiting rooms disease-free. ...

"If an adult caregiver or parent decides not to vaccinate their children, we feel that they're taking an unnecessary risk, so we wanted to take a strong stand and say this is so important to us that it's a deal breaker for us," Dr. Dyer says matter-of-factly.

Dyer published his vaccine manifesto in the journal 'Pediatrics'. He says, "I think more physicians need to be more aggressive about vaccinating kids. If you're not willing to vaccinate your kids, if you're not willing to trust us and trust our judgment and education then we have a philosophical difference here."

Dyer says he has turned away families who have refused vaccinations, and encourages other doctors to do the same. That angers Barbara Loe Fisher, the co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center. "I think doctors are going to have to get used to parents asking questions about vaccines. And they need to have a civil, rational conversation with parents, and not be bullying and threatening them."

...

[Confusious]

1. If they're like you it's a waste of time trying to talk to them.

Good for the doctors.

They got to make their all-important selfish "personal choice", no the doctors get to make theirs for the good of the rest of us.

They should hang a sign:

No disease spreading anti-vacc people here.

[mrbscott19]

2. Nobody should be required to have foreign elements

injected into their body if they do not wish to. This is on par with the pharmacy people who refuse to fill BC prescriptions. Find a new profession if you want to force your views on other people when you should be helping them.

[Confusious]

3. If they don't wish to

They should find another job. Same for the pharmacists.

I don't need to be getting sick with some disease on top of whatever I'm in the hospital for.

[Ilsa]

4. "Take this medical treatment or else."

I'm abhorred by this Dr's position. He should be working with them to find out why they are anti-vax, if there had been an adverse reaction in the family, etc, not turn them away.
Not everyone is willing to accept turning their bodies over for injections, to be radiated (TSA, too), cut on, biopsies, etc. Don't we have any right to self-determination anymore, or are we under the control of the Doctor?

[trotsky]

5. Do people have the right to be carriers of disease?

And spread them to the vulnerable among us?

[Ilsa]

24. My son isn't a carrier of disease, and I didn't

Vaccinate him to protect you. I did it to protect him. But ha ha, poor kid, his last vax made him extremely ill for several days, and due to his autism, we can't be sure that it didn't create his latest permanent health issue which wasn't present when he was vaxed, but was accidentally found two months later.

We do our best to not "spread disease". We've done our part to save all of you that can't get your shots. You might try saying "thank you" instead of bitching at me because I might have a question about shit getting injected into my disabled child. Both of my kids have been vaxed for everything except flu and Hep A which aren't required.

[trotsky]

64. You didn't answer my question.

Do people have the *right* to be carriers of disease? Yes or no?

And you might want to change your language because you're using a very offensive word to describe something I'm not even doing. Your post could get deleted.

[LeftishBrit]

6. I disagree with this approach...

mainly because if the doctors won't treat the children, then they're making SURE that the parents will take them to quacks instead, and the kids won't get any sort of medical care. At least the doctors may be able to persuade the parents to use *some* aspects of modern medicine for the children, even if they avoid the vaccinations.

[trotsky]

8. It's definitely far from ideal...

but they do have a point about having those vax-free disease harborers stay out of their waiting rooms and offices. A lot of confused anti-vaxers think it's a terrible fault of vaccines that they don't ALWAYS work. But it's true, they don't. Sure they've got upwards of 95% effectiveness but they're not perfect - those for whom the vaccines don't generate enough of a response rely on the rest of us through herd immunity just as much as the people who can't get vaccinated do.

[Confusious]

12. They probably already go to quacks.

[Crunchy Frog]

37. Actually, you can find plenty of docs who are not quacks

and who will work with parents who want to persue alternate schedules. There's lots and lots of doctors out there who are more flexible and willing to work with parents. That doesn't make them quacks.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Next: schools will require vaccinations!

Oh wait....

[varkam]

9. As much as I agree with the ends, I'm not sure the means are defensible.

This reeks of a sort of medical extortion -- either get vaccinated or I won't provide you with care. A physician's duty is to do what is in the best interest of the patient and with that patient's fully informed (and voluntary) consent. To do otherwise would be, in my opinion, constitute a dereliction of medical responsibility to that patient.

If a parent were to question vaccines, I think physicians should stress both their safety record, their health benefits, and, indeed, their necessity as being a part of living in a medically healthy society. Physicians should not, however, cajole or bully parents into doing what may be scientifically and medically appropriate, but nevertheless comes at the price of patient autonomy. To put it differently, docs ought to be aggressive and persistent in their efforts to get patients to vaccinate, but withholding medical care because of a refusal to vaccinate crosses the line into other types of violations of patient autonomy that I imagine many here also find reprehensible (such as pharmacists refusing to dispense Plan B medication).

[LeftishBrit]

10. I agree with you

[Confusious]

11. They can always go somewhere else

Personal choice and all, that some around here trump as the end all be all.

That being said, if someone doesn't want your help, there's nothing you can do to make them. Since it the disease they don't want help with, the best you can do is to make sure the ones who do want help don't get sick.

Some have a myopic view of "do no harm" if someone you know is spreading disease, "do no harm" does not entail bringing them around other people who could get sick. That would be "doing harm"

[varkam]

13. My objection is not based on the axiom of "do no harm"

My objection is based on respect for patient autonomy and self-determination.

And it's neither here nor there, but patients cannot "always go somewhere else" -- especially not those patients that live in rural areas and have limited access to healthcare. That's the same refrain that I often here from people defending the actions of physicians that refuse to perform otherwise life-saving abortions or pharmacists refusing to dispense Plan B medication -- but it's not always true, and especially not for those who often need the services the most and are of the most limited means to obtain them.

[Confusious]

14. So they should go to the doctor's office

and get everyone else sick who had no choice in the matter.

"My objection is based on respect for patient autonomy and self-determination."

They're being autonomous and made their own determination, now the doctor is making his for the safety of his other patients.

What do you think gives someone the right to refuse vaccines, and then go and make others sick?

Really, I want to know. Is there a right for people who refuse vaccines to give me measles or chicken pox, or my child?

Most of the people refusing are people who have enough money to pay big bucks for quack homeopaths, so I don't believe the limited access canard.

The difference between the doctors refusing to see patients and pharmacists refusing medication, is that no one else is affected by your choice in the case of the pharmacist, and it's not a pharmacists job to second guess your doctor.

[mhatrw]

17. Exactly! The people refusing are all a bunch of overeducated liberal elites!

They are primarily concerned about their own kids' health! Fuck them and their overeducated liberal ways!

[trotsky]

18. If they fear and eschew vaccination, I assure you...

they are most definitely NOT "primarily concerned about their own kids' health."

And considering the right-wing sources you have used in your own little war against vaccination, I find it hilarious that you're trying to make this a conservative vs. liberal thing. :rofl:

[mhatrw]

27. I was responding to the "Most of the people refusing are people who have enough money to pay

big bucks for quack homeopaths, so I don't believe the limited access canard" canard.

Fuck those rich liberals, their concerns about vaccine safety, and their quack homeopaths!

Let them all die the horrible deaths they so richly deserve for daring to question any vaccine, vaccine ingredient or vaccine administration schedule!

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varkam]

22. I think the fact that we still live in a democratic society....

gives people the right to refuse vaccinations, wrong-headed as it may be. People have the right to smoke, people have the right to make poor decisions for their diet, etc. etc. Those decisions also have adverse consequences for the rest of us in the form of second-hand smoke and higher health insurance premiums.

The issue is not whether people have the right to make choices that affect others, though -- we clearly do have that right. The issue is slightly different in the OP because it takes places within the context of the doctor-patient relationship. One of the fundamentals of that relationship is, again, autonomy and patient self-determination. Perhaps my doctor should refuse me medical care if I smoke, as that is a behavior that will have negative consequences for others. Perhaps my doctor should only allow me to come to his office if I am not sick or contagious, as otherwise the potential exists that I may get other patients ill -- after all, what gives me the right?

Do not mistake where I am coming from. I agree with the ends of this proposal. Objections to vaccination on the basis of safety are at best uninformed and at worst, dangerous. Nevertheless, I hesitate to extort parents to vaccinate their children by dangling in front of them their children's own health and well-being by withholding medical care. This would have the co-comittant unpleasantness of punishing children for the wrong-headed beliefs of their parents. To be frank, such a policy is disgusting and has no place in the medical profession. The way we ought to increase vaccination rates is through education and better access to medical care -- not through strong-arm extortion by withholding medical care to patients that often-times need it the most.

And I'm also skeptical of your statement that most people who refuse are really rich and have no limited access problems. Even assuming, arguendo your statement is true, by your own measure this would still deprive at least some children of access to medical care because their parents are uninformed (e.g. "most"). See my above comment regarding the moral propriety of such a policy.

[Confusious]

23. I don't know if you noticed,

But they are passing laws restricting smoking in most places.

As for diet, it may effect you as far as premiums go, but it doesn't cause the death of a child from a preventable disease. You're probably not going to be smoking in the doctor's office, and if you do, everyone will notice and tell you to stop. You have no such warning with diseases like mumps measles or rubella.

Vaccines are some of the safest and most effective ways of preventing disease. If they don't want vaccines, then they don't want to be informed. The OPer is a perfect example.

"Opps, I broke a tooth, it's the vaccines fault!"

[varkam]

25. I don't know if you noticed, but that's a non-sequitur.

What state legislatures may or may not do has exactly zero bearing on the ethical duties a physician owes their patients. Nor does it have anything to do with the problem of punishing children for their parents uninformed stupidity. A state legislature is free to enact a law requiring vaccination of children entering public schools, for example (and indeed, this is the general state of the law albeit with exceptions). That's irrespective of the notion that what is central to the doctor-patient relationship is, among other things, an emphasis placed on autonomy and self-determination.

I agree that vaccines are some of the safest and most effective ways of preventing disease, but that still doesn't justify strong-arming parents into vaccinating their children by threatening to withhold medical treatment from said children. Perhaps you would be fine with a policy that threatens said children with physical violence until parents consent to vaccinate? I repeat my refrain that such a policy is simply disgusting, and I'm getting the sense that we will have to agree to disagree.

[HuckleB]

One of the ethical areas of contention remains what to do with patients who consistently refuse...

... medical advice. At some point, a physician may be more responsible by cutting the patient loose, with reputable referrals to other practitioners, versus continuing to give advice, perhaps including recommendations for medications or vaccines even, that is not heeded. This is not cut and dry.

[varkam]

41. Maybe so, but that's not what's going on here.

Parents may be refusing medical advice, but the situation that you're referring to bears no resemblance, in my opinion, to the position advocated in the OP. Advice is just that -- advice. Patients are not obligated to follow it, hence the idea of autonomy and self-determination.

[HuckleB]

47. That's a bit of a twist out of the matter.

If you'd have responded to the actual content of my post, rather than to the part about "advice," then maybe I'd have something to respond to...

[varkam]

51. I'm sorry, I thought that was the content of your post.

Perhaps I was reading words that someone else wrote.

[Confusious]

35. So basically, you're saying a doctor can't have

"autonomy and self-determination," but a patient can?

So you believe a doctor has to treat each and every person who calls him to be treated, and he can't have any "choice" about who he treats.

You've also got myopia. Doctor ethics would also state "I should not allow a known disease carrier to spread the disease to people who have no choice."

"I'm getting the sense that we will have to agree to disagree."

Yes we will.

[varkam]

40. Can a doctor choose not to treat someone?

Not any ethically sensitive doctor that I am aware of. Should a doc refuse to treat a patient unless they accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior? Should a doc refuse to treat a patient because they are of a different political persusasion? What about if they are of a different skin color? Perhaps you would be fine with those self-determinative options.

A doctor has an ethical obligation to treat their patients. Patients don't have an obligation to obey their doctors -- I'm sorry that's so difficult for you to understand.

[Confusious]

44. A doctor has an ethical obligation to treat their patients.

What if he doesn't want to take a patient? Does he have a right to do that? Does he have to treat whoever walks in his door?

Emergency room, yes, we will agree on.

Of course, people who don't get vaccines will go there and spread disease. So you got a broken arm? here's some measles too.

You keep arguing about individual rights, What about my right not to get measles or some other preventable disease?

[varkam]

52. I'm sorry -- do you have a "right" not to contract preventable disease?

[Confusious]

53. So you're saying people have a right to spread them,

But not be free of them?

That seems to be the essence of your argument.

[varkam]

58. You didn't answer my question.

Regardless of your answer, though, there is no such "right." Unless you want to move to a deserted island, you're going to have to accept some level of risk of contracting preventable disease -- it's one of the downsides of living in civilization.

And people have a "right" to live their lives in accord with principles of autonomy and self-determination. People have the right to engage in risky behaviors, such as smoking and eating red meat, that can have negative externalities. Not that smoking a pack of cigarettes and washing it down with a fifth of Jim Beam is the best way to go about things, but I can't really talk in terms of having the right to be free from all negative externalities of the behavior of others -- again, it's one of the many downsides of living within civilization.

Moreover, even parents of kids who are vaccinated can still spread preventable diseases to you -- so presumably you would have them drawn-and-quartered as well for violating your "rights"? What about parents who don't teach their children to wash their hands, thereby increasing the risk of spreading disease -- are you likewise prepared to withholding medical care from those children until their parents correct their non-handwashing ways?

I agree that vaccinations are the way to go, but you don't get parents to vaccinate by threatening the lives of their children. That's repugnant, and frankly I'm a little disturbed that such an idea has found such stalwart support here.

Really, this exchange has spun off into the realm of the ridiculous. I'm done.

[Confusious]

62. you don't get parents to vaccinate by threatening the lives of their children.

What's the difference? They're already threatening the lives of their children by refusing vaccines.

They're also threatening the lives of other people's children by refusing vaccines.

So in my book, that's two knocks against the people refusing the vaccines, and only one against the doctor. The doctor wins.

It's not about "asking questions" about vaccines. They are REFUSING vaccines.

As I said to another around here, you don't seem to understand the idea of a social contract. Taxes are a part of that, for example. I would like to live in a safe society, so I pay taxes.
So are vaccines. You give up the freedom to be a savage to exist in it.

[mhatrw]

28. "If they don't want vaccines, then they don't want to be informed."

Does that sound like science or like religious dogma?

[Confusious]

34. Niether

You have a really hard time identifying almost everything.

It's personal opinion, though you are a case study in that opinion.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Not always,

(1) There may be no other doctors around, especially if people live in a rural or otherwise sparsely populated area; (2) If this is an approach being recommended, then most or all doctors may start adopting the policy.

I can see the point about spreading diseases around the waiting-room; but this is part of a more general problem that is not entirely dependent on vaccinations. Even if little Johnny is immune to measles, he may still have a nasty chest infection, or a new brand of flu for which there isn't yet a vaccination, or an infectious form of gastro-enteritis - and share his lovely germs with everyone else. People generally seek medical attention when they're ill, which often means that they're infectious, especially in the case of children who are less likely to have some of the other problems that take you to the doctor. So there needs to be a general policy to reduce the risk. Doctors could ask that if a child has certain types of symptom, their parents should ring the office before bringing the child - in some cases either advice could be given over the phone, or the doctor may choose a home visit as the safer option. Such policies were in use in the UK during the swine flu of 2009, and probably helped to reduce the spread of the disease.

[Confusious]

21. As long as they're not around others. nt

[Tumbulu]

60. I don't know...suppose the parents refused to vaccinate for

tetanus and lived on a horse farm ....why should a doctor willingly take on a patient who may cost his practice lots of money on purpose and may give his practice a bad reputation? Let alone destroy his or her confidence in their capacity to treat patients successfully?

I don't agree with this doctor, but I do think that a doctor has a right to state what he or she can and cannot do.

A parent who refuses to vaccinate entirely should be willing to accept that some physicians do not have the training or ability to cope with a disease that they rarely encounter.

I was arguing once on another board with someone about tetanus vaccines and they went on and on about how it is just laziness on the side of physicians and that the diseases can easily be treated after they are contracted.

Well, I have had sheep die of tetanus and although for humans perhaps it is easier to treat, it is really not possible to treat after the fact for farm animals successfully. If I was a doctor and had no confidence in my capacity to save someone from tetanus if they were unvaccinated, then I should have the right to admit this and say, I just cannot be involved in trying to save this child as I do not know how to treat it.

[Confusious]

63. I once ripped my finger open on a staple

It was a big staple.

The owner's wife was a nurse, I asked about catching tetanus, and whether I could get it or maybe go get a booster. She said "You'd be dead already if you had caught it"

I went and got a booster the next day, for the next time.

[Tumbulu]

72. Good decision (nt)

[kerouac2]

15. Dyer's manifesto...

Does Dyer's manifesto also advocate that he and participating "manifesto" doctors no longer require parents who they convince/advise/require to vaccinate in order to receive their care sign a liability waiver releasing the administering doctor of any responsibility or financial obligation relating to serious adverse reactions or deaths(1)? I'm curious to see if Dr. Dyer backs his strong convictions with the money he makes from these patients and if he's confident enough in the safety of his actions to take financial responsibility for his expert recommendations. The VAERS system reported 35000+ adverse reactions in 2010(2). The FDA and CDC also readily admit that only a "small fraction" of adverse affects are reported(3). And, unfortunately, the VAERS system only deals with short term effects. Also, shouldn't adults in Dyer's world be included in the "manifesto" considering most have not had their booster shots(4)? Should all adults who haven't received all the shots children receive today, as well as subsequent boosters, be refused medical care by their physicians?


---

1. "Approximately 15 percent of the reports describe a "serious" event, which is considered to be either fatal, life-threatening, or resulting in hospitalization or permanent disability."
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115058.htm

2. http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html

3. "Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events.
http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

4. A national survey by the American Academy of Family Physicians showed that while nearly 75% of adults think they are up to date on their immunizations, only 2% have actually received this Tdap booster.
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home.html

[Confusious]

16. The VAERS system also reported

A man "turning into the hulk" because of vaccines.

Discuss.

[LeftishBrit]

20. BTW, the title is misleading

The doctors are not refusing to treat children whose parents QUESTION vaccines. They are refusing to treat children whose parents REFUSE vaccines.

As I've indicated, I'm opposed to the policy; but I'm also opposed to misleading statements, and in particular to the idea that pro-vaccination people are all unreasonable authoritarians who 'ZOMG! They won't even let people ask questions!'

[varkam]

26. It actually detracts from the message when such disingenuous tactics are employed, IMO

It would actually be much more effective just to state the truth upfront in this case as opposed to trying to slant the substance of the article.

But, such is life.

[mhatrw]

29. Does the doctor in the OP sound like an advocate for informed consent when it

comes to vaccination?

[LeftishBrit]

30. He sounds like someone who treats healthcare as something that he can give or withhold

rather than as a universal right. Which is very wrong, in the opinion of this universal healthcare beneficiary and supporter.

However, he is not stopping anyone from asking *questions* .

[mhatrw]

31. It seems to me his viewpoint is "agree with me on every vaccine without question or hit the road."

If that is not his true point of view, perhaps he should have expressed himself less stridently.

[LeftishBrit]

32. No. He said, 'Comply with my medical advice in this matter, or hit the road.'

He is making his services conditional on action, not opinion. He is not saying that people must agree with him, or not ask questions; he is saying that ultimately they must *do* what he says if they wish to continue in his practice.

Parallels occur in many areas. The telephone company will cut me off if I don't pay their bill, but not if I just complain about it.

As I've said before, I *don't agree* with making healthcare, especially for children, conditional on patient's choices; but 'questioning' as such doesn't come into it.

[Crunchy Frog]

38. That was my ped's position. Stated in about as many words.

[Crunchy Frog]

36. I got fired by my first ped for wanting to slightly alter my boys vaccination schedule.

Fuck that. I feel that I am well rid of her, and am much happier with their current doc who goes along with my preferences.

[HuckleB]

39. "Slightly."

:rofl:

[Crunchy Frog]

42. So, you know what my chosen vaccine schedule is?

You are the All Knowing one and omnicient. Please tell me what it is.

[HuckleB]

46. So your history of posting on this topic is totally unknown.

And the spin you just offered hasn't been pushed by hundreds of anti-vaxers around the Internet.

Got it.

:sarcasm:

The usual spin here, spin there routine.

No one is buying it.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. Oh, so you can read tea leaves...er posting history,

and detect what vaccine schedule someone uses for her children.

Oh well, might as well come clean. I protect my children from illness by having them chew on some roots that I ordered from China. Satisfied oh tea leaf reading one?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

66. Your posting history tells all.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

68. Actually...

I don't really think it's that important what CF's vaccination schedule is for her own family, to justify so much debate - any more than the precise details of what someone cooks or eats. What's important is the overall policies. Thus, if someone attacks the public provision of vaccinations that is worth debating IMO. Or worse still, takes a generally right-libertarian approach ('governments should stay out of healthcare') or an anti-secularism approach ('too many people worship science as a god'). I don't really think we should be arguing about each other's personal lifestyle choices, especially when there is so much danger from powerful politicians and journalists.

(This is not supporting political right-libertarianism in any way; just keeping the focus on policies rather than people.)

[HuckleB]

69. You're basically correct.

I'm calling this poster out on the use of a classic anti-vax technique. It's a dishonest and ludicrous technique, and I shouldn't waste my time, but I am.

[Crunchy Frog]

71. What does my posting history tell?

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

43. mind reading helmet on the fritz again?

[WolverineDG]

45. Kinda like how doctors now are calling CPS

when parents want a second opinion on a child's diagnosis.

If the doctor can't handle a parent's reasonable questions & concerns, he/she is in the wrong line of work.


dg

[Confusious]

48. They shouldn't do that

But when it comes to vaccines, they have a proven record of controlling disease. Not giving them is everyone else abuse.

What record you ask? Smallpox.

Wasn't acupuncture or homeopathy that wiped it out.

[WolverineDG]

49. But telling parents they can't ask ANY questions is quite arrogant in my book

and the holier-than-thou attitude that vaxxers have is also quite arrogant. Almost as if everyone is supposed to bow down & worship (but not question) the great god Science. Science is not infallible, & doctors & scientists do make mistakes. Withholding treatment because a parent *DARES* to ask a question, any question (even if it is a valid question), is wrong & arrogant.

Personally, I'm not so sure "all in one" vaccines are the smart thing to do. What's wrong with one or two at a time, with boosters throughout childhood (the way I got my vaccines)?

And for the record, smallpox is not chicken pox, which is the one vaccine I'd hesitate to give, nor has it been eradicated. No one is vaccinated for smallpox anymore, despite the fact that there are still live strains of it in existence & the threat of bio-warfare/terrorism very real.

dg

[LeftishBrit]

50. Except that this isn't what they did.

They did *not* dismiss patients for *asking questions*; they dismissed them for *refusing* vaccines. If they asked questions, but then had the vaccines anyway, they were not dismissed.

Now: as I've said already, I think that even the actual policy is wrong. Healthcare is a right, not a privilege (contrary to what the American Right say); and doctors should not be withholding this right because they disapprove of patients' choices. Especially they should not withhold this right from *children*, because they disapprove of their *parents'* choices. But it isn't about suppressing the asking of questions.

[WolverineDG]

57. "refuse care if parents question vaccines"

seems pretty clear to me that this doctor was refusing service if the parents *dared* to question him, not that he refused to treat children of parents who refused to vaccinate.

dg

[varkam]

59. Except that quote is from the imagination of the OP,

not the actual article.

[LeftishBrit]

61. This is the OP's opinion about it; it was not stated by the doctor, or in the article.

In my post 28, I pointed out how the title could be misleading - and it does seem to have misled you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=100763&mesg_id=100842

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.