Ooops...
From: Todd Gastaldo (tgastaldo_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 10/01/04
- Next message: Hannah Gruen: "Re: Explain This Irrational Behavior To MU"
- Previous message: lbbss: "Am I geting vitamine D through Glass window? Sun UV rays?"
- Next in thread: Anth: "Re: Ooops..."
- Reply: Anth: "Re: Ooops..."
- Reply: Anth: "Re: Ooops..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:22:43 GMT
Oooops... When I calculated total mean peak Vit C in the bloodstream
following oral administration...
I forgot to multiply by 134.8 micromol/L (see below)...
Doing the rough multiplication...
It appears that 1.25 grams of Vit C orally yields a mean peak of roughly 0.1
grams of Vit C in the bloodstream total...
So, regarding the humorous criticism that "Vit C pill takers" are "just
making expensive urine"...
Unless I still have my math wrong, Vit C user stool is still more way more
expensive than Vit C user urine.
I think making expensive stool and urine may be well worth it health-wise -
but it's just a guess.
Saw your reply, Anth - thanks.
"Todd Gastaldo" <tgastaldo@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jB17d.3231$Yr.2891@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Ummmm....
>
> (see below)
>
> "Anth" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
> news:equdnaCfGYLiwsHcRVn-tw@nildram.net...
>> http://www.askbillsardi.com/sdm.asp?pg=vitc_calam
>> Recently published scientific studies now confirm that high-dose vitamin
>> C taken throughout the day may dramatically reduce major health risks.
>> But funny thing, nobody noticed. Even though the data was published in
>> the Annals of Internal Medicine in the early months of 2004, doctors paid
>> no attention. [Annals Internal Medicine, April 6, 140: 533-37, 2004] The
>> news media also appears to be oblivious to the report. It should have
>> been a major headline. But worse yet, government researchers who
>> conducted the study failed to alert the public or the news media.
>> Countless millions of Americans could avoid cataracts, aneurysms,
>> gallstones, cancer and heart disease with this knowledge.
>>
>> For the past eight years, National Institutes of Health scientists have
>> been telling the public and the news press that consumption of more than
>> 200 milligrams of vitamin C is of worthless value because amounts beyond
>> that are readily excreted. Vitamin C-pill takers were incorrectly
>> ridiculed for producing nothing more than expensive urine.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think I'll stick to my ascorbate health insurance ;-)
>>
>> Anth
>>
>
> I too think oral megadose vitamin C may dramatically reduce major health
> risks, but it's still a "may," right?
>
> I didn't see any mention of cataracts, aneurysms, gallstones or heart
> disease in the PubMed abstract of the knowledge/article cited...
>
> Note, the knowledge/article cited used HEALTHY volunteers. See the PubMed
> abstract below.
>
> It's cool that mean peak plasma concentration of Vit C reached 134.8 +/-
> 20.6 micromol/L after oral administration of 1.25 grams...
>
> Hmmmm....
>
> A "mole" is the molecular weight expressed in grams, right?
>
> And a "micro" mole is a millionth of a mole right?
>
> Vit C's molecular weight is said to be 176.12...
> http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/vitc3.htm
>
> So a mole of the stuff would have a mass of 176 grams - and a micromol
> would be 0.000176 grams.
>
> In an average healthy adult, the volume of blood is about one-eleventh of
> the body weight. Most sources state the volume of blood in an average
> human adult, who is between 150 to 160 pounds, as between 4.7 and 5
> liters, although the more recent sources state the volume of blood in an
> average adult as 4.7 liters.
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/LanNaLee.shtml
>
> Assuming 5 liters of blood times (say) 0.0002grams - then taking 1.25
> grams puts roughly one thousandth of that amount in the bloodstream -
> 0.001 grams total at mean peak concentration.
>
> (I hope I've done my math right.)
>
> Quoting the article cited...
>
>> Vitamin C-pill takers were incorrectly ridiculed for producing nothing
>> more than expensive urine.
>>
>
> Even if megadose Vit C has no beneficial health effect (which I doubt), it
> truly is incorrect to ridicule Vitamin C-pill takers for producing nothing
> more than expensive urine - i.e. (correct me if I am wrong but) - it looks
> like the stool of Vitamin C-pill takers is way more expensive than their
> urine.
>
> Megadose Vit C expert Robert Cathcart, MD indicates that when we are very
> sick, free radicals are changing Vit C into dehydroascorbate which "has a
> half-life in the body of only a few minutes"...
>
> "Free radicals are molecules that have lost an electron and they are very
> reactive because they want an electron in the worst way...When ascorbate
> gives up 2 electrons to neutralize 2 free radicals, it becomes
> dehydroascorbate...Dehydroascorbate has a half-life in the body of only a
> few minutes..."
> http://www.orthomed.com/explain.htm
>
> So perhaps stool and urine become less expensive as Vit C does its
> work...as the body needs more Vit C to keep quenching the voracious
> electron thirst of free radicals?
>
> Anyway, here's the relevant PubMed abstract.
>
>
> Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr 6;140(7):533-7. PubMed abstract
>
> Vitamin C pharmacokinetics: implications for oral and intravenous use.
>
> Padayatty SJ, Sun H, Wang Y, Riordan HD, Hewitt SM, Katz A, Wesley RA,
> Levine M.
>
> National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the
> National Cancer Institut, and the Clinical Center, National Institutes of
> Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-1372, USA.
>
> BACKGROUND: Vitamin C at high concentrations is toxic to cancer cells in
> vitro. Early clinical studies of vitamin C in patients with terminal
> cancer suggested clinical benefit, but 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled
> trials showed none. However, these studies used different routes of
> administration. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether plasma vitamin C
> concentrations vary substantially with the route of administration.
> DESIGN: Dose concentration studies and pharmacokinetic modeling. SETTING:
> Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: 17 healthy hospitalized volunteers.
> MEASUREMENTS: Vitamin C plasma and urine concentrations were measured
> after administration of oral and intravenous doses at a dose range of
> 0.015 to 1.25 g, and plasma concentrations were calculated for a dose
> range of 1 to 100 g. RESULTS: Peak plasma vitamin C concentrations were
> higher after administration of intravenous doses than after administration
> of oral doses (P < 0.001), and the difference increased according to dose.
> Vitamin C at a dose of 1.25 g administered orally produced mean (+/-sd)
> peak plasma concentrations of 134.8 +/- 20.6 micromol/L compared with 885
> +/- 201.2 micromol/L for intravenous administration. For the maximum
> tolerated oral dose of 3 g every 4 hours, pharmacokinetic modeling
> predicted peak plasma vitamin C concentrations of 220 micromol/L and 13
> 400 micromol/L for a 50-g intravenous dose. Peak predicted urine
> concentrations of vitamin C from intravenous administration were 140-fold
> higher than those from maximum oral doses. LIMITATIONS: Patient data are
> not available to confirm pharmacokinetic modeling at high doses and in
> patients with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Oral vitamin C produces plasma
> concentrations that are tightly controlled. Only intravenous
> administration of vitamin C produces high plasma and urine concentrations
> that might have antitumor activity. Because efficacy of vitamin C
> treatment cannot be judged from clinical trials that use only oral dosing,
> the role of vitamin C in cancer treatment should be reevaluated.
>
> Dr. Cathcart writes...
>
> The Third Face of Vitamin C
> Robert F. Cathcart, M.D.
> Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 7:4;197-200, 1993.
> Copyright (C), 1994 and prior years, Dr. Robert F. Cathcart. Permission
> granted to distribute via the internet as long as material is
> distributed in its entirity and not modified.
>
> ABSTRACT
> Bowel tolerance to orally ingested ascorbic acid increases with the
> toxicity of diseases. Bowel tolerance with a disease such as mononucleosis
> may reach 200 or more grams per 24 hours without it producing diarrhea. A
> marked clinical amelioration or cure is achieved in many disease processes
> when threshold doses near bowel tolerance are given. In a sense, it is the
> reducing equivalents carried by free radical scavengers that quench free
> radicals, not the free radical scavengers themselves. Ascorbic acid can be
> dramatically useful in quenching free radicals because it is usually
> tolerated in amounts necessary to provide the reducing equivalents
> necessary to quench almost all the free radicals generated by severe
> disease processes. Vitamin C functions are incidental at these dose
> levels; the benefit is from the reducing equivalents carried. To the
> extent that free radicals are either essential to the perpetuation of a
> disease or just part of the cause of symptoms, the disease will be cured
> or just ameliorated. These effects are even more dramatic from intravenous
> sodium ascorbate.
>
>
> Keywords: vitamin C, ascorbate, acute induced scurvy, bowel tolerance,
> titrating to bowel tolerance, the ascorbate effect, free radical
> scavengers, reducing equivalents.
>
> INTRODUCTION
> A clinical experience prescribing doses of ascorbic acid up to 200 or more
> grams per 24 hours to over 20,000 patients during the past 23 year period
> has revealed its clinical usefulness in all diseases involving free
> radicals. The controversy continues over the value of vitamin C mainly
> because inadequate doses are used for most free radical scavenging
> purposes. Paradoxically, the non controversial use of minute doses of
> vitamin C in the prevention and treatment of scurvy has set the minds of
> many against more creative uses.
>
> I have found vitamin C exceptionally useful in a very high dose range. Its
> usefulness is in three such distinct realms that I will describe them as
> the three faces of vitamin C.
>
>
> 1. vitamin C to prevent scurvy
> (up to 65 mg/day.)
> 2. vitamin C to prevent acute induced scurvy
> and to augment vitamin C functions
> (1 to 20 grams/day.)
> 3. vitamin C to provide reducing equivalents
> (30 to 200 or more grams/day.)
>
>
> One might criticize the wisdom of my use of these massive doses but
> Klenner had successfully utilized them previously. The works of Irwin
> Stone, Linus Pauling, and Archie Kalokerinos have supported many of my
> observations. It was apparent that in all the studies yielding negative or
> equivocal results, inadequate doses were used. In some studies, doses
> barely bordering on adequate, tease the investigator with statistically
> significant but not very impressive beneficial results.
>
> My early discovery was that the bowel tolerance to ascorbic acid of a
> person with a healthy GI tract was somewhat proportional to the toxicity
> of their disease. Bowel tolerance doses are the amounts of ascorbic acid
> tolerated orally that almost, but not quite, cause diarrhea. A patient who
> could tolerate orally 10 to 15 grams of ascorbic acid per 24 hours when
> well, might be able to tolerate 30 to 60 grams per 24 hours if he had a
> mild cold, 100 grams with a severe cold, 150 grams with influenza, and 200
> grams or more per 24 hours with mononucleosis or viral pneumonia (1, 2).
> Marked clinical benefits in these conditions occur only at the bowel
> tolerance or higher levels. I named the process whereby the patient
> determined the proper dose as titrating to bowel tolerance. These
> increases in bowel tolerance in the vast majority of patients normally
> tolerant to ascorbic acid (perhaps 80% of patients) are invariable. The
> marked clinical benefits are noted only when a threshold dose, usually
> close to the bowel tolerance dose, is consumed. I call this benefit the
> ascorbate effect.
>
> Most patients are started at first with hourly doses of ascorbic acid
> powder dissolved in small amounts of water. Later, after the patient has
> learned to accurately estimate the dose necessary to achieve the ascorbate
> effect, comparable doses of tablets or capsules are also used. Where
> patients are intolerant to adequate amounts of ascorbic acid orally and
> the severity of the disease warrants it, intravenous sodium ascorbate is
> used.
>
> Failures are related to individual difficulties in taking the proper
> adequate doses. I now have had 22 years to gather clinical experience and
> to reflect on this phenomenon.
>
> I want to emphasize the importance of this increasing bowel tolerance with
> increasing toxicities of diseases. The sensation of detoxification one
> experiences at these doses is unmistakable.
>
> The effect is so reliable and dramatic in the tolerant patient as to make
> obvious the fact that something very important, that has not been widely
> appreciated before, is going on.
>
>
> THE THREE FACES
> Vitamin C probably always functions by being an electron donor. At the
> lowest dose level (the first face), it is necessary as a vitamin to
> prevent scurvy. It is essential for certain metabolic functions which are
> well described and mostly non controversial.
>
> At a second level (the second face) vitamin C is still used as a vitamin
> but larger doses are necessary to maintain its basic vitamin C functions
> because the vitamin is destroyed rapidly in diseased or injured tissues
> where there is an overabundance of free radicals. I described the
> resulting state of deficiency, if the vitamin C is not replaced, as acute
> induced scurvy (1, 2). There is ample evidence of this depletion of
> vitamin C by stress and disease as recently reviewed in the literature.
>
> Additionally, the recent extensive research on vitamin C has concerned
> itself with certain functions that may be augmented by higher than minimal
> doses of vitamin C (20). Strangely, any usefulness of these larger than
> minimal doses of vitamin C remain mostly neglected by clinicians. This
> level is from about 1 to 20 grams a day. Benefits vary from person to
> person.
>
> At this second level, as in studies reviewed by Pauling (11) and more
> recently by Hemil" (20), there may be expected a slight decrease in the
> incidence of colds but a more significant reduction in the complications
> and the duration of colds. Personally, I am impressed by the number of
> patients (but certainly not all) who tell me that they have not had a cold
> for years since reading Pauling's book and taking vitamin C. Patients with
> chronic infections frequently have those infections cured for the first
> time. Antibiotics work synergistically with these doses. A surprising
> number of elderly persons benefit from doses of this magnitude and may
> indeed have what Irwin Stone described as chronic subclinical scurvy (10).
>
> The third level of doses (the third face) is virtually undiscussed in the
> literature but is the most interesting. These doses range usually from 30
> to 200 grams or more per 24 hours. The most important concept to
> understand is that while incidentally at these dose levels the vitamin C
> performs all the functions of levels one and two, it is mostly thrown away
> for the reducing equivalents it carries (3). With these doses it is
> possible to saturate the body with reducing equivalents, neutralize the
> excessive free radicals, and drive a reducing redox potential into
> involved tissues. Inflammations mediated by free radicals can be
> eliminated or markedly reduced. In many instances patients with allergies
> or autoimmune disease have their humeral immunity controlled while their
> cellular immunity is augmented (19). To the extent that free radicals are
> either essential to the perpetuation of a disease or just part of the
> cause of symptoms, the disease will be cured or just ameliorated.
>
> The list of diseases involving free radicals continue to grow. Infections,
> cardiovascular diseases, cancer, trauma, burns both thermal and radiation,
> surgeries, allergies, autoimmune diseases and aging are now included. It
> is more difficult to think of a disease that does not involve free
> radicals. Progressive nutritionists routinely give vitamin C, vitamin E,
> beta carotene, selenium, NAC, etc. to counter free radicals. I certainly
> agree with this practice. However, there is one important concept
> neglected.
>
> In the spirit that if you throw a bucket of water on a fire, it is the
> water that puts the fire out, not the bucket; it is the reducing
> equivalents carried by the free radical scavengers that quench the free
> radicals, not the free radical scavenger itself.
>
> Most of the reducing equivalents utilized by non enzymatic free radical
> scavengers do not come from the ingested free radical scavengers but come
> through glycolysis, the citric acid cycle, NADPH, FADH2, glutathione, etc.
> Dietary free radical scavengers carry in on ingestion only a small
> percentage of the total reducing equivalents carried by those scavengers
> during their lifetime in the body. After their first pass neutralizing
> free radicals, the free radical scavenger must be recharged with reducing
> equivalents made available in the mitochondria.
>
> Consider the following: Early in this study a 23-year-old, 98-pound
> librarian with severe mononucleosis claimed to have taken 2 heaping
> tablespoons every 2 hours, consuming a full pound of ascorbic acid in 2
> days without it producing diarrhea. She felt mostly well in 3 to 4 days,
> although she had to continue about 20 to 30 grams a day for about 2
> months. Subsequently, all my young mononucleosis patients with excellent
> GI tracts have responded similarly and have had equivalent increases in
> bowel tolerance during the acute stage of the disease.
>
> I believe that the loose stools caused by excessive doses of ascorbic acid
> orally ingested is due to a resulting hypertonicity of ascorbate in the
> rectum. Water is attracted into the rectum by the increased osmotic
> pressure and results in a benign diarrhea. With toxic illnesses, the
> ascorbate is destroyed rapidly in the involved tissues resulting in a
> rapid absorption from the gut. Of the ascorbate, what does not reach the
> rectum, does not cause diarrhea. Intravenous sodium ascorbate does not
> cause diarrhea and, in fact, increases bowel tolerance to orally ingested
> ascorbic acid while the IV is running. With hypertonicity of the ascorbate
> both in the blood and in the rectum, the osmotic pressure of the ascorbate
> is more equal on both sides of the bowel wall so no diarrhea results. If
> the diarrhea was cause by other metabolic processes, diarrhea would be
> caused by intravenous ascorbate.
>
> It should be noted that in some cases of pathological diarrhea, ascorbic
> acid stops the diarrhea. Presumably in these cases some of the increased
> destruction of ascorbate is from free radicals in the bowel. However, in
> most toxic systemic diseases there is no reason to believe that the
> destruction of the additional ascorbate occurs directly in the bowel, so
> it is a safe hypothesize that this increased destruction occurs in the
> interior of the body.
>
> The increased tolerance to ascorbic acid orally provides an interesting
> and somewhat useful measure of the toxicity of a disease. Probably it is
> somewhat a measure of the free radicals involved in a disease. I describe
> a cold that at its maximum makes it possible for a patient to just
> tolerate 100 grams of ascorbic acid orally without diarrhea, a "100 gram
> cold." Patients, appearing to be well, who have a tolerance over 20 to 25
> grams per 24 hours probably have some subclinical condition which is being
> hidden by their own free radical scavenging system.
>
> Patients with chronic infections (and a normally strong stomach) can
> ingest enormous amounts of ascorbic acid. One of my chronic fatigue
> patients is functional only because of his ingestion of 65 pounds of
> ascorbic acid in the past 12 months. In 22 years, I, personally, have
> ingested approximately 361 kilos ( 797 lbs ) ( 4.3 times my body weight )
> of ascorbic acid because of chronic allergies and perhaps chronic EBV.
>
> Considering the reducing equivalents carried by such amounts of ascorbic
> acid, one can only guess at the turnover rate of the non enzymatic free
> radical scavengers in a patient acutely ill with a 200 gram mononucleosis.
> However, one gains the impression that all the non enzymatic free radical
> scavengers would have to be rereduced many times a day.
>
> AN ANALOGY
> Suppose you owned a farm and on one end of the property there was a barn
> and on the other end of the property there was a water well. One day the
> barn catches fire and neighbors come with buckets to set up a bucket
> brigade between the water well and the barn and are putting out the fire
> when the well goes dry.
>
> My use of ascorbate is like thousands of neighbors coming from miles
> around, each with a bucketful of their own water, throwing their own water
> on your fire once, and then leaving.
>
> CONCLUSION
> Because of the invariable (in patients tolerant to ascorbic acid)
> increasing bowel tolerance to ascorbic acid in patients roughly in
> proportion to the toxicity of their disease, there has to be something
> happening to ascorbate in the sick patient other than its being used as
> vitamin C in the classic sense. The amelioration or sometimes cure of
> different diseases appears related to the importance of free radicals in
> the perpetuation of the paticular disease.
>
> The sudden marked benefit in many disease processes which is achieved at
> doses near to the bowel tolerance level suggests that a reducing redox
> potential is forced into the affected tissues only at those dose levels.
> This ascorbate effect only at the high dose levels is also suggestive that
> something other than classic functions of vitamin C is involved. This
> ascorbate effect is more compatible with principles of redox chemistry.
>
> Only a small percentage of the total reducing equivalents donated by non
> enzymatic free radical scavengers to neutralize free radicals, come in on
> the ingested nutritional free radical scavengers. Ascorbate is unique in
> that the body can tolerate doses adequate to supply the necessary reducing
> equivalents to quench the free radicals generated by severely toxic
> disease processes. The vitamin C is thrown away for the reducing
> equivalents it carries. Only in this way can the large amounts of free
> radicals generated by the most toxic disease processes be rapidly
> quenched.
>
> REFERENCES
>
> 1. Cathcart RF. The method of determining proper doses of
> vitaminC for the treatment of disease by titrating to bowel
> tolerance. J Orthomolecular Psychiatry 1981; 10: 125-32.
>
> 2. Cathcart RF. Vitamin C: titrating to bowel tolerance,
> anascorbemia, and acute induced scurvy.
> Medical Hypotheses 1981; 7:1359-76.
>
> 3. Cathcart RF. A unique function for ascorbate.
> Medical Hypotheses 1991; 35: 32-7.
>
> 4. Klenner FR. Virus pneumonia and its treatment with vitamin C.
> J. South. Med. and Surg. 1948; 110: 60-3.
>
> 5. Klenner FR. The treatment of poliomyelitis and other virus
> diseases with vitamin C.
> J. South. Med. and Surg. 1949; 111:210-4.
>
> 6. Klenner FR. Observations on the dose and administration of
> ascorbic acid when employed beyond the range of a vitamin in
> human pathology. J. App. Nutr. 1971; 23: 61-88.
>
> 7. Klenner FR. Significance of high daily intake of ascorbic
> acid in preventive medicine.
> J. Int. Acad. Prev. Med. 1974; 1:45-9.
>
> 8. Stone I. Studies of a mammalian enzyme system for producing
> evolutionary evidence on man.
> Am. J. Phys. Anthro. 1965; 23:83-6.
>
> 9. Stone I. Hypoascorbemia: The genetic disease causing the human
> requirement for exogenous ascorbic acid.
> Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1966; 10: 133-4.
>
> 10. Stone I. The Healing Factor: Vitamin C Against Disease.
> Grosset and Dunlapp, New York, 1972.
>
> 11. Pauling L. Vitamin C and the Common Cold.
> W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1970.
>
> 12. Pauling L. Vitamin C, the Common Cold, and the Flu.
> W.H.Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1976.
>
> 13. Pauling L. How to Live Longer and Feel Better.
> W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1986.
>
> 14. Kalokerinos A. Every Second Child.
> Keats Publishing, Inc., New Canaan, 1981.
>
> 15. Cathcart RF. Clinical trial of vitamin C. Letter to the
> Editor, Medical Tribune, June 25, 1975.
>
> 16. Cathcart RF. Vitamin C in the treatment of acquired
> immunedeficiency syndrome (AIDS).
> Medical Hypotheses 1984; 14(4): 423-33.
>
> 17. Cathcart RF. Vitamin C: the nontoxic, nonrate-limited,
> antioxidant free radical scavenger.
> Medical Hypotheses 1985; 18:61-77.
>
> 18. Cathcart RF. HIV infection and glutathione (Letter to editor
> concerning Vitamin C tolerance in AIDS).
> Lancet 1990; 335(8683);235.
>
> 19. Cathcart RF. The vitamin C treatment of allergy and the
> normally unprimed state of antibodies.
> Medical Hypotheses 1986;21(3): 307-21.
>
> 20. Hemil H. Vitamin C and the common cold.
> Br J Nutr 1992; 67:3-16.
> __________________________________________________
> Robert F. Cathcart, M.D.
> Allergy, Environmental, and Orthomolecular Medicine
> Orthopedic Medicine
> 127 Second Street, Suite 4, Los Altos, California, USA
> Telephone: 650-949-2822
> Fax: 650-949-5083
> http://www.doctoryourself.com/cathcart_thirdface.html
>
>>>>>>>>>END Cathcart article...
>
> "Because of the invariable (in patients tolerant to ascorbic acid)
> increasing bowel tolerance to ascorbic acid in patients roughly in
> proportion to the toxicity of their disease, there has to be something
> happening to ascorbate in the sick patient other than its being used as
> vitamin C in the classic sense..."
>
> Hmmm... Perhaps my interpretation is too loose but it appears that the
> sicker you are - the more your bowel can take before diarrhea hits...
>
> Interesting.
>
> Todd
>
> Dr. Gastaldo
> todd@chiromotion.com
>
- Next message: Hannah Gruen: "Re: Explain This Irrational Behavior To MU"
- Previous message: lbbss: "Am I geting vitamine D through Glass window? Sun UV rays?"
- Next in thread: Anth: "Re: Ooops..."
- Reply: Anth: "Re: Ooops..."
- Reply: Anth: "Re: Ooops..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
