Science vs Cancer.

The Lounge is for non-sport-related topics other than politics, war and religion. Order up your favorite beverage, kick back and enjoy the conversation! RATING: PG-13
Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:47 am
  • +1 Science.



    Researchers might have found the Holy Grail in the war against cancer, a miracle drug that has killed every kind of cancer tumor it has come in contact with.

    The drug works by blocking a protein called CD47 that is essentially a "do not eat" signal to the body's immune system, according to Science Magazine.

    This protein is produced in healthy blood cells but researchers at Stanford University found that cancer cells produced an inordinate amount of the protein thus tricking the immune system into not destroying the harmful cells.

    With this observation in mind, the researchers built an antibody that blocked cancer's CD47 so that the body's immune system attacked the dangerous cells.

    More...
    President of the Perfect Parents Society - est. 2013
    User avatar
    JesterHawk
    * Smackmeister *
     
    Posts: 7103
    Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:56 pm


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:59 am
  • Wow. Sounds promising. As a cancer survivor myself (mild one), I applaud this.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 10236
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Monroe, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:28 am
  • Who was it around here like a year or more ago that lambasted the possibility of one way to cure all forms of cancer, saying it could never happen due to the complexity and varying aspects of different types of cancer? (I didn't disagree with this person, but I don't recall who it was; they were a nurse, or worked in the medical industry in some way, if I recall correctly.)

    If they can get this to work in humans, it would change everything in the medical industry. Most oncologists would have to switch specialties, and there'd be a lot of lost profits for medical equipment manufacturers like Philips. There will be a lot of fighting under the table to prevent this from getting approved, unfortunately...
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26423
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:41 am
  • RolandDeschain wrote:Who was it around here like a year or more ago that lambasted the possibility of one way to cure all forms of cancer, saying it could never happen due to the complexity and varying aspects of different types of cancer? (I didn't disagree with this person, but I don't recall who it was; they were a nurse, or worked in the medical industry in some way, if I recall correctly.)

    If they can get this to work in humans, it would change everything in the medical industry. Most oncologists would have to switch specialties, and there'd be a lot of lost profits for medical equipment manufacturers like Philips. There will be a lot of fighting under the table to prevent this from getting approved, unfortunately...


    Why would oncologists have to switch specialties? They'd still have to exist in order to diagnose the proper form of cancer, and for that, they'd still need equipment.

    It's strange to me, too, to think of people fighting this kind of thing in order to make a profit. Most hospitals I know exist to cure disease, not prolong it.
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15451
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:52 am
  • Sarlacc83 wrote:It's strange to me, too, to think of people fighting this kind of thing in order to make a profit. Most hospitals I know exist to cure disease, not prolong it.


    Really? You find this strange? It's common practice in business. Do you know that chewing gum that lasts, with full flavor, for a full 6+ hours, was invented decades ago? Why don't we see this on store shelves?

    Hospitals are still businesses. They're not some altruistic funded-by-good-feelings entity. They want to make a profit. As far as oncologists go, most of their time is not spent in diagnosing cancer, but in treating it, as far as I know. Aren't most forms of cancer confirmed with a simple biopsy, needing no specialized equipment besides what you check biopsies with for a host of other medical conditions, as well?

    There is a ton of profit in cancer treatment, both in drugs and equipment, and if this miracle cure works in humans and is approved by the FDA, all of that basically becomes worthless overnight. You better believe it'll be fought in some circles, though they'll have to be very careful and subtle with how they do it due to public backlash if they're found out.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26423
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:12 am
  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    Sarlacc83 wrote:It's strange to me, too, to think of people fighting this kind of thing in order to make a profit. Most hospitals I know exist to cure disease, not prolong it.


    Really? You find this strange? It's common practice in business. Do you know that chewing gum that lasts, with full flavor, for a full 6+ hours, was invented decades ago? Why don't we see this on store shelves?

    Hospitals are still businesses. They're not some altruistic funded-by-good-feelings entity. They want to make a profit. As far as oncologists go, most of their time is not spent in diagnosing cancer, but in treating it, as far as I know. Aren't most forms of cancer confirmed with a simple biopsy, needing no specialized equipment besides what you check biopsies with for a host of other medical conditions, as well?

    There is a ton of profit in cancer treatment, both in drugs and equipment, and if this miracle cure works in humans and is approved by the FDA, all of that basically becomes worthless overnight. You better believe it'll be fought in some circles, though they'll have to be very careful and subtle with how they do it due to public backlash if they're found out.


    I would assume most medical professionals will still want to know the extent of the cancers, and that's going to take imaging equipment. (Not that MRIs and the like don't have other uses.) Also, those cured of cancer will also probably want to get regular check ups to make sure the cancer doesn't return. It's not like someone's just going to give these drugs to a family physician. It does stand to reason that most oncologists spend most of their time treating cancer, but that's also because of the host of side effects as well.

    I'm not arguing that there's not a lot of money in the system, but I'm also pretty sure that big pharm is going to get its money somehow (by restricting access to the drugs or by making it exorbitantly expensive). As for the human aspect, most hospitals are also looking to drive down costs where they can, and this would add up to a huge savings expenditure for them. (Nurses would more likely be affected than doctors, in my estimation.) Also, the potential backlash of being caught prolonging cancer issues, were it to ever come out, is not really worth the financial risk when it's going to be easier to shift responsibilities.

    As an analogy: You're arguing that it's in a hospital's best interest to tell us to eat poorly so they have an obesity epidemic to treat.
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15451
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:16 am
  • Sarlacc83 wrote:As an analogy: You're arguing that it's in a hospital's best interest to tell us to eat poorly so they have an obesity epidemic to treat.


    Ever wonder why hospital food isn't even seasoned?

    You get out of there and want to eat a 5,000-calorie meal. :devil:

    Don't get me wrong, they want to keep you alive as long as possible, so that other things can make you ill that they get to treat. ;)
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26423
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:18 am
  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    Sarlacc83 wrote:As an analogy: You're arguing that it's in a hospital's best interest to tell us to eat poorly so they have an obesity epidemic to treat.


    Don't get me wrong, they want to keep you alive as long as possible, so that other things can make you ill that they get to treat. ;)


    Well that is true. Hip and joint replacements are expensive.
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15451
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:43 am
  • Arguing the wrong point IMHO. It isn't really hospitals or providers that are the real culprits these days. It's the insurance companies and especially the pharmaceuticals, who are making billions off of current 'treatments' for cancer and other lingering diseases. They get their profits out of prolonging the conditions and treating the symptoms, not curing things.

    Providers are often caught in the middle, wanting to prescribe cures and affect positive outcomes, while being tempted by subsidies from the Pharmas to push pills.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 10236
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Monroe, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:49 am
  • sutz wrote:Arguing the wrong point IMHO. It isn't really hospitals or providers that are the real culprits these days. It's the insurance companies and especially the pharmaceuticals, who are making billions off of current 'treatments' for cancer and other lingering diseases. They get their profits out of prolonging the conditions and treating the symptoms, not curing things.

    Providers are often caught in the middle, wanting to prescribe cures and affect positive outcomes, while being tempted by subsidies from the Pharmas to push pills.


    Um, NO. Insurance companies DON'T want people being in more treatment and taking more expensive drugs. Quite the opposite. that's why many of the larger payors are pushing wellness programs and offering incentives for wellness. it's cheaper and therefore more profitable to have healthy people paying for insurance and not needing treatment that for sick people paying and costing hundreds of thousands per year. Use your brain.

    the larger hospital corporations (HCA and the like) are built around profiting from illness. Roland might be a wee bit more cynical than is necessary, but he's not far wrong here. Yes, Doctors do care about making you healthy, but hospital administrators don't, and there is a very real possibility that at the top level, there could be a quiet movement to at least delay this type of cancer treatment, if not discredit it altogether. Horrifying, but sadly closer to the truth than we'd like to believe.
    Colt 45 and two zig zags.
    User avatar
    peachesenregalia
    * NET Starfish *
     
    Posts: 11035
    Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:29 am
    Location: Helm's Deep


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:01 am
  • So, Sutz, hospitals charging insurance companies significantly more for basic procedures now as compared to 5/10 years ago has nothing to do with it whatsoever? Also, people living longer and needing health care for more years is irrelevant too, I suppose? I've got a coworker that has racked up several hundred thousand dollars in medical costs to our insurance carrier. Much of which is for her knee, and complications from problems with it. How many $600/month insurance policies are needed, with those people not incurring any medical costs, does it take and for how many years, to cover one person racking up a ton of costs like that?

    Look at the stock price history of the past 5 years for medical insurance companies. I just did. Most of them peaked around 5-7 years ago, and then dropped. Most of them are worth less now than they were 6 years ago on this day. There isn't an easy way to artificially inflate costs for medical insurance companies like the big oil companies have. (Oops, a refinery needs to be offline for 3 months for improvements.)

    I'm not trying to defend medical insurance companies. They will use any excuse in the book to not provide coverage for people, and I don't like it. However, let's stop pretending they're the biggest reason for rising medical insurance costs, yes? Just like this person describes, I've seen the same exact procedures with the same equipment in most cases, go up significantly in cost in recent years on my dad's medical bills.

    Medical insurance companies receiving bills 2-4 times higher for the same procedures in just a few short years has nothing to do with it though, right, Sutz?

    Sutz?

    Hello? Is this thing on?
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26423
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:07 am
  • Sutz was correct about the pharmaceutical companies though. They make billions from treating problems. If things are cured they make no money long term.

    It has long been known that bee venom can work to cure arthritis in a large portion of the population, it has been used in many parts of Europe for over a century. The FDA has kept it from being approved here because of the loss of revenues it would cost the pharmaceutical companies. It is far more profitable to teat the symptoms of a problem than to cure it.

    Having said the above, I hope this somehow works out to help cure cancer. To say this would be outstanding is a complete understatement.
    OrFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2923
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:54 pm


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:11 am
  • OrFan, I agree with you there. The whole healthcare industry in this country is a mess, in my opinion, and it's one of the few things I'd like to see much more government involvement in, I just get tired of ignorant people blaming the big bad insurance companies without really knowing what they're talking about.
    Colt 45 and two zig zags.
    User avatar
    peachesenregalia
    * NET Starfish *
     
    Posts: 11035
    Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:29 am
    Location: Helm's Deep


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:17 am
  • Blaming any one aspect of the health care industry is ignorant, is my point. They're all to blame, to varying degrees; but it is DEFINITELY not just one part of the industry's fault.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26423
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:27 am
  • peachesenregalia wrote:OrFan, I agree with you there. The whole healthcare industry in this country is a mess, in my opinion, and it's one of the few things I'd like to see much more government involvement in, I just get tired of ignorant people blaming the big bad insurance companies without really knowing what they're talking about.


    Watch it with the 'ignorant people' comment. You aren't in the PWR or Shack, and you're skirting a line...
    User avatar
    Anguish
    * NET Developer *
     
    Posts: 3887
    Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
    Location: Battle Ground, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:38 am
  • Anguish wrote:
    peachesenregalia wrote:OrFan, I agree with you there. The whole healthcare industry in this country is a mess, in my opinion, and it's one of the few things I'd like to see much more government involvement in, I just get tired of ignorant people blaming the big bad insurance companies without really knowing what they're talking about.


    Watch it with the 'ignorant people' comment. You aren't in the PWR or Shack,and you're skirting a line...


    Knowing the definition of ignorant might help:

    "ig·no·rant [ig-ner-uhnt] Show IPA
    adjective
    1.
    lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
    2.
    lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
    3.
    uninformed; unaware.
    4.
    due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4162
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:40 am
  • First, my apologies for posting a PWR toned response to this thread. The actual subject brought up by the OP is a good thing, assuming it works as promises.

    Discussions about what entities/forces might support or oppose it are for another forum.

    My bad.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 10236
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Monroe, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:41 am
  • DTexHawk wrote:Knowing the definition of ignorant might help:


    The problem isn't the word ignorant, it's the fact that Peaches referred to a certain someone in this thread as an ignorant person, which is a personal insult, and against the rules. Note that he said nothing about my use of the word ignorant.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26423
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:44 am
  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    DTexHawk wrote:Knowing the definition of ignorant might help:


    The problem isn't the word ignorant, it's the fact that Peaches referred to a certain someone in this thread as an ignorant person, which is a personal insult, and against the rules. Note that he said nothing about my use of the word ignorant.


    So you can't say that someone is making an uninformed statement, that's ignorant. :P
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4162
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:50 am
  • Sure, you can. Here, I'll do it right now.

    Your statement is ignorant, DTex. :)

    The rule is basically "attack the post, not the poster". I can even call your post utterly retarded.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26423
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:51 am
  • Well, I actually wasn't meaning to single out Steve, but I can see how he fell under my umbrella about ignorant people. My bad. Sorry.
    Colt 45 and two zig zags.
    User avatar
    peachesenregalia
    * NET Starfish *
     
    Posts: 11035
    Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:29 am
    Location: Helm's Deep


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:04 am
  • RolandDeschain wrote:Sure, you can. Here, I'll do it right now.

    Your statement is ignorant, DTex. :)

    The rule is basically "attack the post, not the poster". I can even call your post utterly retarded.


    I just fail to see that he "attacked" anyone.

    Many are "ignorant" of many things they say on these boards, myself included, and saying so is different than calling someone "Stupid". IMO

    Thin skins. :stirthepot:
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4162
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:30 am
  • DTexHawk wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote:Sure, you can. Here, I'll do it right now.

    Your statement is ignorant, DTex. :)

    The rule is basically "attack the post, not the poster". I can even call your post utterly retarded.


    I just fail to see that he "attacked" anyone.

    Many are "ignorant" of many things they say on these boards, myself included, and saying so is different than calling someone "Stupid". IMO

    Thin skins. :stirthepot:


    We're in the 'thin skin' part of the forum. I can't even make a generalized comment about pushy, aggressive Texans who won't back down, I don't think. Maybe I can, but I won't test the line.

    :thirishdrinkers:
    President of the Perfect Parents Society - est. 2013
    User avatar
    JesterHawk
    * Smackmeister *
     
    Posts: 7103
    Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:56 pm


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:45 am
  • Here's hoping that cure proves fruitful. My understanding is that it's not just about killing the cancer cells, because any scorched-earth approach could do that, but finding something that leaves the patient healthy.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11323
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:59 am
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:Here's hoping that cure proves fruitful. My understanding is that it's not just about killing the cancer cells, because any scorched-earth approach could do that, but finding something that leaves the patient healthy.

    Yeah, it sounds like it uses the patient's own immune system to combat the cancerous cells. Still a little note there at the bottom where it is still hard to keep it from affecting healthy cells producing that protein, but hey, it sounds good.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 10236
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Monroe, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:07 pm
  • I don't generally as a rule think corporations are evil, but the ones that put profit ahead of healing people, are evil and need to be destroyed or at least exposed as vampires.
    "Are we rockin' and rollin' or what?!''

    -- Seattle coach Pete Carroll, celebrating with his coaches after the Seahawks pulled off a trade with the Jets, netting running back Leon Washington on Saturday, via Seahawks.com
    User avatar
    MLOhawks
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3371
    Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:35 pm
    Location: Seattle, WA - USA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:22 pm
  • Let's hope it isn't Monsanto that is developing this cure...
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11256
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:32 pm
  • We are a treatment culture, not a preventive culture. Best way to cure and prevent diseases is a healthy diet, like a legitimately healthy diet, not the "get more exercise while still buying meat and cheese from giant corporations that pump their food full of chemicals".

    There have been plenty of more efficient medical advances in the world that have not caught on in the US because of the lack of profitability.
    User avatar
    seahawk2k
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1643
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:41 pm


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:33 pm
  • seahawk2k wrote:We are a treatment culture, not a preventive culture. Best way to cure and prevent diseases is a healthy diet, like a legitimately healthy diet, not the "get more exercise while still buying meat and cheese from giant corporations that pump their food full of chemicals".

    There have been plenty of more efficient medical advances in the world that have not caught on in the US because of the lack of profitability.


    Like?
    I enjoy ruining threads by making them about personal attacks and then commenting about how personal attacks make the other person's argument invalid.

    :les:
    User avatar
    SonicHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8044
    Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:41 pm
  • You are actually going to make me go back and cite everything I read?

    Here's one that comes to mind(naturally), there is a much cheaper, safer, and more reliable method of performing a vasectomy that was discovered in India a few years ago and has met stiff resistance on the path to approval over here.

    There are others I'll have to dig up.
    User avatar
    seahawk2k
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1643
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:41 pm


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:52 pm
  • I love how so many self-proclaimed health experts use the word "chemicals" as a synonym for "food cancer". If it's a chemical, it's bad. End of story. :roll:
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26423
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


Re: Science vs Cancer.
Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:12 pm
  • RolandDeschain wrote:I love how so many self-proclaimed health experts use the word "chemicals" as a synonym for "food cancer". If it's a chemical, it's bad. End of story. :roll:

    They type this while wearing synthetic clothing, walking on synthetic carpet, driving a half plastic car that spits pollutants into the air of the city they chose to live in, storing their food in cabinets made of glued together pressboard, and then freak out because somebody put wax on their apple.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11256
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am




It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:24 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE NET LOUNGE ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], RolandDeschain and 4 guests