Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chemotherapy can backfire and worsen cancer, a new study has found
Global Post ^ | 05 AUG 2012 | Amy Silverstein

Posted on 08/08/2012 4:41:55 AM PDT by BCW

Despite its life-saving qualities, chemotherapy has long had a nasty reputation, known as a necessary poison for people suffering from cancer. But in some cases, chemotherapy is so damaging that it may even backfire and make the cancer worse, a new study has found. The study, published in Nature Medicine, found that chemotherapy causes damage to healthy cells, which triggers them secrete a protein that actually sustains tumor growth, Cancer UK reported.

(Excerpt) Read more at globalpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: cancer; chemo; chemotherapy
Uhm...a chemical injected into the body - would cause damage...who'd a thought?
1 posted on 08/08/2012 4:42:02 AM PDT by BCW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BCW

Better link: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/health/120805/chemotherapy-can-backfire-and-cause-cancer-new-study-has-found


2 posted on 08/08/2012 5:03:22 AM PDT by Blennos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCW
Uhm...a chemical injected into the body - would cause damage...who'd a thought?

A mind unable to process simple concepts and information, who's surprised?

The purpose of chemotherapy is to use the cancer cell's relatively rapid proliferation and impaired cell repair mechanisms against it. Generally it's been found that they die more rapidly than non-cancerous cells and recover less easily. The same is true for radiation. The whole point of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation is to knock out enough of the cancer cells that recovery can take place. In the current news, it has been discovered that the response of healthy cells is to produce a protein to protect themselves. This protein can diffuse to the deranged cancer cell and make it more resistant to further insult from a chemical agent. Does this mean that chemotherapy is bad or ineffective? No, it just means that the situation is more complicated than previously understood and it also provides a basis for designing something to interfere with the cancer cells' benefitting from the response of surrounding healthy cells.

You have a very weird view of chemicals anyway. That appears to be a large part of your problem.

Our bodies are chemical machines that run on chemicals. They also produce chemical by-products that are very toxic. The body has ways of dealing with them that are more or less effective. There are chemicals in food that we don't need for purposes of nutrition. The body has ways of dealing with them that are more or less effective. Sometimes other chemicals are added to food and packaging to keep "food" from spoiling. Why? Because the danger posed by those chemicals is minuscule compared to the danger posed oxidation or by mold and bacteria the growth of which those chemicals are designed to retard.

In a day in which we have food of unparalleled quantity, quality, and availability in a way never before seen in history to the point that people are developing life-threatening conditions from too much of a good thing and in a day when analytical chemistry has become so advanced that parts per trillion can be detected of one chemical, it's inevitable that at least two things will occur:

1. Someone will start demanding governmental regulation to reduce your intake of food to prevent you from developing diseases arising from hypernutrition.

2. Someone will start pointing out the presence of naturally-occurring chemicals in food that, in sufficient quantity, could sicken or kill you and demand that something be done to regulate them.

Sort of like what they did back in the 1960s and 70s when people eager to get their hands on the levers of government power and remake the United States into their vision of a socialist utopia warned that we were being exposed to an ocean of man-made carcinogens against which we had no defenses (but them and their regulatory urges) and that by the 1990s there would be a cancer epidemic if we didn't regulate immediately and regulate well through something like, well, the EPA and other agencies so that we could then be free of man-made chemicals and live in peace and healthful harmony with benign nature.

They used the Ames test to show the danger of mutability posed by certain industrial chemicals that they claimed needed to be regulated for the sake of health. It was later, after the regulatory camel was in the tent, that Ames himself showed that almost anything could be used in his test to provoke mutability and others demonstrated that nature, far from being benign, was full of dangerous chemicals that could cause cancer and many, many other forms of illness, and yet people managed to keep living and reproducing.

But wherever there's a danger, no matter how slight, you will always find people eager to be frightened and to impose their fears on others. And they are usually not content to do so by using their own money to attempt to persuade others to follow what they promise will be freedom from disease and death but by getting the government to impose on other people, using other people's money, their utopian vision.
3 posted on 08/08/2012 5:13:03 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCW
Sorry. This doesn't pass the smell test. Chemotherapy works by killing the fastest growing cells in your body. That is why people lose their hair and sometimes their fingernails. But it also target cancer cells which divide and multiply at random. I am glad we have had the use of various chemotherapies. They have exponentially helped far more people than they may have hurt.
4 posted on 08/08/2012 5:22:02 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I likened chemo to leeches of a time before. You are killing the good cells as well as the bad, same as bloodletting was letting out the good blood as well as the bad.

Now, for the courts who took children because they did not get chemo, will they give an apology to the parents and children?


5 posted on 08/08/2012 5:23:33 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCW

Forget the hype about marginal potential.

Go with the Doc’s recommendations, ask questions, but listen.

I tried being a google doc, and my approach would have killed me.

My Doc recommended low dose cisplatin and it worked well....7 years ago.


6 posted on 08/08/2012 6:04:08 AM PDT by G Larry (Progressives are Regressive because their objectives devolve to the lowest common denominator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

Sorry. This doesn’t pass the smell test.
///
i agree. i think this is just justification for the NHS to avoid expensive chemo.
...similar to the recent “studies” that show prostate tests, and cancer screenings and even EKGs to be of little benefit.


7 posted on 08/08/2012 6:05:44 AM PDT by Elendur (It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BCW

Perhaps under Obamacare, it’s just too expensive.


8 posted on 08/08/2012 6:05:44 AM PDT by FES0844
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

From UK “healthcare”, could mean fewer having “chemo” and off the “dole” sooner. The socialist would like to see “life expentcy” drop among the masses.


9 posted on 08/08/2012 6:08:36 AM PDT by duffee (Romney 2012, NEWT 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Is Obama care positioning it self to save a few bucks with chemo treatment rejections?
10 posted on 08/08/2012 6:08:44 AM PDT by JIM O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BCW

Causes more damage for which you will need more medical care, as well as more drugs from the fancy companies that pride themselves on how well they wine and dine docs.


11 posted on 08/08/2012 6:13:01 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
My first experience on the medical wards as a 3rd year medical student in the early 70's was a child with leukemia, who died shortly after diagnosis, which was fairly common at that time with the chemo that was available at that time. Now, improvements have led to a 90% cure rate for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia, which is the most common malignancy of childhood. Link
12 posted on 08/08/2012 6:23:12 AM PDT by SC DOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

“Someone will start demanding governmental regulation to reduce your intake of food to prevent you from developing diseases arising from hypernutrition.”

I don’t have a simple - and how rude of you to make such assumptions.

The problem with the US public as of now - is not “quality” of food - it’s over-processed and lacks nutrients. That is a fact - not an opinion. Giving the body nutrients is not a bad thing. Taking pills is.

Cancer rates have soared in the last 30 yrs - and it’s due to large volume of food being processed for easy meals - easy pick-up - and the results is a population that is fat and sick all the time.

Other cultures that do not participate in the US Diet don’t have these problems. Japan for one.

The last thing I want is more govt, control - but that’s what we have in corn and soy production. I live in Indiana and I fly my own helicopter - and it’s all I see in the vastness of this state.

Per Cancer - I’m very familiar with it. I’ve conducted research studies from an Anti-Terrorism perspective on germ warfare - and cancers were the initial phases of that.

As the results - my father died from such treatments - his immune system destroyed - and he received his bone marrow transplant from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Wash. At the time it was the best place to go for such traditional cancer treatments.

I love it when people get on here and are rude - knowing nothing about me - with one liners.


13 posted on 08/08/2012 6:24:11 AM PDT by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

Good to see others get it.

Doctors and medical science are great at a host of things - but cancer - not so much. They are using the same types of chemo and radiation to fight cancer. It’s not a cure they are looking for - but someones coin!

Doctors are practitioners - they practice on people and hope they get it right. Per the drug companies - and those wanting to be Google Doc’s - have available to them - clearly academic and peer reviewed publications that state the very thing that cure is not an option - but it serves great for advertizing.


14 posted on 08/08/2012 6:28:54 AM PDT by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
My first experience on the medical wards as a 3rd year medical student in the early 70's was a child with leukemia, who died shortly after diagnosis, which was fairly common at that time with the chemo that was available at that time. Now, improvements have led to a 90% cure rate for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia, which is the most common malignancy of childhood. Link
15 posted on 08/08/2012 6:38:31 AM PDT by SC DOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BCW
Cancer rates have soared in the last 30 yrs - and it’s due to large volume of food being processed for easy meals - easy pick-up - and the results is a population that is fat and sick all the time.

I call B.S.

Cancer rates have soared statistically for two reasons.

One is because people are living longer and not dying of all the other things that were getting people before they developed cancer. The second is that cancer is better detected now than thirty years ago. It doesn't count as cancer unless the cancer is detected. In 1960 Grandma would die of liver failure. In 2010 she died of liver cancer. The only differnce being the detection.

I also have experience with the subject. My daughter has brain cancer so I have been learning from the doctors at MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center in Houston. They just happen to be #1 in the world in cancer treatment, so I think they know what they are talking about.

16 posted on 08/08/2012 7:54:20 AM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51

No - you’re right - it’s not due to the way food is processed now in 2012 compared how it was processed in 1960’s - when people brought locally grown products and purchased meat from their local butcher. People are getting fat because mankind is evolving and transforming to a newer human species...thanks for calling BS because your daughter is at MD Anderson - that alone debunks all other researchers in the world of cancer...


17 posted on 08/08/2012 8:13:29 AM PDT by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BCW
Doctors and medical science are great at a host of things - but cancer - not so much. They are using the same types of chemo and radiation to fight cancer. It’s not a cure they are looking for - but someones coin!

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. My daughter has brain cancer, two types Anaplaxtic astrocytoma and oligodendroglioma.

She started with surgery. When the surgeon worked on her, he could see what he was doing on a 3d computer screen that displayed the MRI of her brain/tumor and the location of his instruments with an accuracy of less than 1mm. Becasue of its location, 10 years ago she would have had to undergo intense speech therapy. Thanks to the miracle of modern medicine she was taling our heads of within a week.

After surgery, her first treatment consisted of radiation, actually IMRT or Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy. This machine is so precise that the intensity of the radiation beam can be varied in increments of 1mm and from full intensity down to the equivelant of an intense light beam. This allows them to attack the cancer while preserving things like her optic nerve.

After radiation it is chemo. The levels and consitency of both the radiation and chemo were determined by testing the removed tumor down to the genetic level. The presence or absence of specific genes determines the make up of the final treatment regimen.

10 years ago she would have been lucky to survive 18 months, 3 years tops. Today her doctors are telling her what side effects to expect when she hits 40, then 50 and then 60. Don't tell me they don't know what they are doing. What they are doing is absolutly amazing.

18 posted on 08/08/2012 8:19:45 AM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BCW
I have Follicular Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma so I've been reading everything I can to get as much info as humanly possible.

In my case they are giving me a chemo drug (Treanda) in conjunction with what they call a mono-clonal antibody (Rituxan). Neither drug by itself is anywhere near as effective as the two used together.

I have read that the cancer cells create a protein that blocks normal cell death, otherwise they would die normally and there would be no problem. I read that the drug companies are developing drugs to block the protein, which would allow the cells to die on their own and the body could then just do its own thing.

The two drugs they're giving me have been shown to be very effective. I don't know that the study from this article is saying anything that wasn't already known. I'm hoping that the drug companies do have success with this protein blocking drug. It sounds to me like the right way to go.

19 posted on 08/08/2012 8:23:44 AM PDT by Family Guy (A society's first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions and moral values. -Williams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCW
No - you’re right - it’s not due to the way food is processed now in 2012 compared how it was processed in 1960’s - when people brought locally grown products and purchased meat from their local butcher. People are getting fat because mankind is evolving and transforming to a newer human species...thanks for calling BS because your daughter is at MD Anderson - that alone debunks all other researchers in the world of cancer...

Nice try! Try to divert by changing the sugject. You said "Cancer rates are soaring becasue..." That was BS regarless of how fat people are getting. There is no demonstrated correlation between cancer rates and obesity. Diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, liver problems, even joint and arthritis problems yes, cancer no.

20 posted on 08/08/2012 8:28:42 AM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BCW

Over the past three years two very prominent docs in our community were diagnosed with cancer. They were both given the surgery, chemotherapy, radiation option. Both of them chose to treat the pain and live out their shorter lives to the fullest. What does that tell you about their beliefs in the surgery, chemotherapy, radiation treatments?


21 posted on 08/08/2012 9:04:55 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51

“One is because people are living longer and not dying of all the other things that were getting people before they developed cancer. The second is that cancer is better detected now than thirty years ago. It doesn’t count as cancer unless the cancer is detected. In 1960 Grandma would die of liver failure. In 2010 she died of liver cancer. The only differnce being the detection.”

Have you noticed how much younger cancer patients are getting? I said a prayer for your daughter and your family. I read a fantastic book when my mother in law was diagnosed with renal carcinoma: Anticancer by Dr. David Servan-Shreiber. He was an M.D., Ph.D, and 20 year brain cancer survivor at a time when the diagnosis was a death sentence.


22 posted on 08/08/2012 9:15:52 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
Over the past three years two very prominent docs in our community were diagnosed with cancer. They were both given the surgery, chemotherapy, radiation option. Both of them chose to treat the pain and live out their shorter lives to the fullest. What does that tell you about their beliefs in the surgery, chemotherapy, radiation treatments?

It tells me a lot more about your beliefs and an unseemly hastiness to abstract a general principle from an absurdly small sample size than it does anything about the efficacy of treatment modalities or how they related to the two physicians in particular.

For instance, my father was diagnosed late in life with non small cell carcinoma. Surgery was not an option and he elected not to undergo chemotherapy because of his age and because he had had what he considered to have been a long and productive life. At one point he elected to have some successful radiation treatments to shrink the tumor since it was impinging on nerves and was causing excruciating and unremitting pain. But he knew that life was never going to be forever and that his remaining time could be either be relatively pain free or suffering the short term effects of chemotherapy with the end being the same. If this had happened when he was 60 rather than almost 90, his choice would have been different. But that was not a comment on his beliefs about surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, only their relative value at that stage of his life and for the extensiveness of his disease.
23 posted on 08/08/2012 9:25:38 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

That says alot.

I know this is a sensitive subject - as you can see from the poster with the daughter in MD Anderson - but I too watched my father go through all this - and resulted in his death.

Youth has many advantages - and even those doctors are telling this mother that she’s going to live pass 60 - doesn’t mean that cancer has been cured - there are other opinions on treatments and cures - but emotionally charged persons discount all of it when the one they love survives.

I watch top of the line doctors who couldn’t explain to me why my father was dying — so for me - they are people who have been trained in a certain method - and they deploy it - it may work for one and not the other — so it’s a practice - not a cure. My point on diets and fat people are to demonstrate that the US diet is allowing cancer rates to soar - despite the other health factors - cancer is an opportunistic virus - given the right conditions - it flourishes — take that away - and it dies (i.e. Japanese Diet - where they have the lowest cancer rates in the world) When people eat nutrient and organic foods they do not get sick nor do they develop life threatening diseases unless there are other factors that come about. That’s all I’m saying - next you know - people are calling me small minded and full of BS...

We are all entitled to look at all the research. To look away due to an emotional response may hinder progress.


24 posted on 08/08/2012 9:45:45 AM PDT by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BCW
Was part of a study at the Cleveland Clinic 20 years ago. Folks that had head and neck cancers and were nonsmokers. Diagnoised at age 40 with squamous cell cancer in the left tonsil that metastasized to the lymph nodes. Treated with radiation, cycplatin & 5FU as chemo drugs.

Oncologist at the time said he was seeing rarer cancers in younger people. Because I was in a study as a young child on Strontium 90 in cow's milk at my school (Washington University gathered baby teeth to see if it was showing up via cows milk) I suggested he ask his patients where they grew up and if they were subjected to some of the atmospheric atomic testing that went on....seems like there could be a correlation between folks that were children at the time and where they were situated when those clouds moved over the Midwest —
PJ

25 posted on 08/08/2012 10:07:04 AM PDT by duckbutt (Those who pay no taxes have no check on their appetite for services.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
Have you noticed how much younger cancer patients are getting?

Actually that is part of the point I was making about diagnosis. Many, if not most cancers are diagnosed in much earlier stages now.

26 posted on 08/08/2012 11:28:23 AM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51

I am no expert on chemotherapy,but I do remember my sister who died of stomach cancer 15 yrs ago. She told me that she wished she had never accepted chemo. In her case it made the cancer spread and did not help. I think that for every person it is different. My sister would have tried alternative ways to try to cure the cancer,but I guess it wasn’t meant to be. I just hope that someday they find a cure. At least they are trying to find a cure. Let’s give them credit where credit is due.
Janet


27 posted on 08/08/2012 7:21:41 PM PDT by jbern (Chemo is good for some,but not for all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

Please pardon my poor manners. I failed to say thank you for the prayer. They are of course the strongest medicine and always appreciated.


28 posted on 08/08/2012 8:21:32 PM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

Please pardon my poor manners. I failed to say thank you for the prayer. They are of course the strongest medicine and always appreciated.


29 posted on 08/08/2012 8:21:52 PM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BCW; TomB
I love it when people get on here and are rude - knowing nothing about me - with one liners.

Knowing nothing about you? What you're mistaking for rudeness is an appropriate response, not just to the absolute crap you push, which could have been lifted directly from an Adelle Davis, Eat Right to Stay Fit, food fad website, but to your wholly unjustified attitude about the adequacy of your knowledge:

1. The problem with the US public as of now - is not “quality” of food - it’s over-processed and lacks nutrients.

Absolutely and wholly without foundation. There has never been a time in U.S. history when the general public has had easier access to a more inexpensive and wider variety of more nutritious and wholesome food products at any time of year than the present.

2. Cancer rates have soared in the last 30 yrs - and it’s due to large volume of food being processed for easy meals - easy pick-up - and the results is a population that is fat and sick all the time.

Absolutely and wholly without foundation. Cancer death rates, except for those related to tobacco products, have been decreasing. For both men and women cancer deaths have fallen since 1975. If, for instance, you have a country whose average age is lower, you'll have lower cancer rates since many types of cancer take a long time to develop and come as a result of senescence of DNA repair mechanisms and other cell repair/programed cell-death mechanism more typical of the elderly.

As far as being sick all the time, the health consequences of a population suffering consequences of hypernutrition aren't anywhere as bad as one suffering from under-nutrition. Look at Robert Fogel's Nobel lecture to see how things used to be in the bad old days of caloric restriction, diets limited by season and geography and income, and foods having only drying, smoking, or salting to preserve them. The ravages of incomplete tissue and organ development due to less than optimum pre and peri-natal nutrition made themselves felt throughout a person's lifetime and, in many cases, ended it prematurely compared to today's life span.

The single most important thing anyone can due to reduce risks to health due to smoking, obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes, short of not smoking and reducing caloric intake to match expenditure, is to get adequate physical activity, followed by reducing insults to the body from tobacco, and a bit of dietary tweaking. On the last, if you eat from a wide variety of foods including fruits, meats, vegetables, and grains at a level sufficient to meet your daily caloric needs, your diet will be adequate except for, perhaps, vitamin D and calcium, especially if you're a woman.

3. Other cultures that do not participate in the US Diet don’t have these problems. Japan for one.

Absolutely and wholly without foundation. Guess what the Japanese stomach cancer rate is compared to the United States? About ten times higher. Other countries with different traditional diets have other problems, such as mental retardation in the Middle East from the phytate sequestration of zinc in unleavened bread or pellagra suffered by indigenous populations in America or by the maize-eating poor for a couple hundred years in certain European nations or protein malnutrition suffered most often by children in third world countries when they are being weaned by the use of the traditional farina or by adults with excessive physical labor coupled with inadequate protein intake resulting in compromised immune systems.

And I will put my Ph.D. in Human Nutrition/Nutritional Physiology (together with my thesis work in molecular neurobiology and a 4 year post-doctoral cardiology fellowship) up against your "research studies from an Anti-Terrorism perspective on germ warfare."
30 posted on 08/08/2012 9:02:46 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
"if you eat from a wide variety of foods including fruits, meats, vegetables, and grains..." Those have to be organic - not laced with chemicals - mutated by Monsanto - and processed to the point where there is an overgrowth of yeast in one's body. Your Ph.D work is impressive - but field experience and access to information that you don't have you don't have a clearance for has lead me on this path. You're an insider - I get it. So am I. I've just chosen not to participate in the average food from grocery stores. Now that I'm on a high organic vegetable intake - no meat - except for the eggs from farm raised chickens - all kinds of symptoms have been elevated. My allergies gone by not eating sugar, dairy, and wheat products. Other aliments as well. I take a lot of vitamins that apparently I wasn't getting from all those things you listed above from the big name stores. What does your PhD in Nutrition day about that? How did man make so far in history without chemicals being added to their animals and produce? With oil product came population rise - and with that came all this neat and inexpensive things we could manipulate from the chemist. That's not natural - none of it is. Remember this guy and what he said: "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food” ― Hippocrates Don't doctors still take that oath - then why are we treating people with a host of chemicals instead of nutrition? That website you listed - I've never heard of it...you assume alot doctor...
31 posted on 08/09/2012 2:54:12 PM PDT by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson