Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Home | Profile | Register | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 JABS Forum
 News and Comment
 Interview with ex vaccine researcher
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Joan

United Kingdom
599 Posts

Posted - 11/04/2005 :  14:58:25  Show Profile  Visit Joan's Homepage  Reply with Quote
.

>
> Jon Rappoport Interviews Ex Vaccine Researcher
> " The medical cartel, at the highest level,
> is not out to help people,
> it is out to harm them, to weaken them"
>
>
> In India in the early '70s I got into a deep
> conversation with a natural doctor. He asked me at
> one point if I knew what the Polio Vaccine consisted
> of. I parroted, like the young student I had just
> stopped being, that it contained "a little of the
> disease" in order "to allow the body to build up its
> defences against it." Yes, he nodded patiently, but
> he had meant did I know what was actually IN the
> vaccine. I had to admit ignorance.
>
> "They inject massive amounts of syphilis into a cow"
> he said, which of course is a holy animal to the
> hindus. "And when the cow's body breaks out in
> massive syphilitic sores they burst these sores and
> extract the pus and that is what they inject into
> your body" he explained.
>
> I was shocked. But less shocked than he was, it
> seemed. The entire West, he shuddered, is injecting
> these killer diseases into its own bloodstream, its
> own children, and it won't even be able to measure
> their effect for possibly hundreds of years to come!
>
> Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the
> hallmark of good medicine.
> A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines, I
> won't say which ones.
>
> Q: Why not?
> A: I want to preserve my privacy.
>
> Q: So you think you could have problems if you came
> out into the open?
> A: I believe I could lose my pension.
>
> Q: On what grounds?
> A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways
> of causing you problems, when you were once part of
> the Club. I know one or two people who were put
> under surveillance, who were harassed.
>
> Q: Harassed by whom?
> A: The FBI.
>
> Q: Really?
> A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS
> can come calling too.
>
> Q: So much for free speech.
> A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began
> to name names and make specific accusations against
> researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.
>
> Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at
> harassment?
> A: Vaccines are the last defence of modern medicine.
> Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the
> overall "brilliance" of modern medicine.
>
> Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to
> choose whether they should get vaccines?
> A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific
> level, people need information, so that they can
> choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good.
> But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you
> choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honourable
> people, these vaccines would not be granted
> licenses. They would be investigated to within an
> inch of their lives.
>
> Q: There are medical historians who state that the
> overall decline of illnesses was not due to
> vaccines.
> A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.
>
> Q: Why?
> A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I
> was in the business of developing vaccines. My
> livelihood depended on continuing that work.
>
> Q: And then?
> A: I did my own investigation.
>
> Q: What conclusions did you come to?
> A: The decline of disease is due to improved living
> conditions.
>
> Q: What conditions?
> A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems.
> Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty.
> Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy,
> you don't contract the diseases as easily.
>
> Q: What did you feel when you completed your own
> investigation?
> A: Despair. I realised I was working in a sector
> based on a collection of lies.
>
> Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
> A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But
> some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other
> lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned,
> all vaccines are dangerous.
>
> Q: Why?
> A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune
> system in a process that tends to compromise
> immunity. They can actually cause the disease they
> are supposed to prevent. They can cause other
> diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.
>
> Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove
> that vaccines have been tremendously successful at
> wiping out diseases?
> A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines
> are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible
> symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes
> that the vaccine is a success. But, under the
> surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system
> itself. And if it causes other diseases - say,
> meningitis - that fact is masked, because no one
> believes that the vaccine can do that. The
> connection is overlooked.
>
> Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out
> smallpox in England.
> A: Yes. But when you study the available
> statistics, you get another picture.
>
> Q: Which is?
> A: There were cities in England where people who
> were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were
> places where people who were vaccinated experienced
> smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the
> decline before the vaccine was introduced.
>
> Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a
> false history.
> A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a
> history that's been cooked up to convince people
> that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.
>
> Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an
> issue.
> A: The public believes that these labs, these
> manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in
> the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs
> all the time. You get all sorts of debris
> introduced into vaccines.
>
> Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the
> polio vaccine.
> A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I
> mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because
> the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But
> I'm talking about something else. The actual lab
> conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors.
> SV40, which was later found in cancer tumours - that
> was what I would call a structural problem. It was
> an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If
> you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs
> which you don't know are in those kidneys.
>
> Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between
> different types of contaminants for a moment. What
> contaminants did you find in your many years of work
> with vaccines?
> A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came
> across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of
> mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex
> measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses.
> In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a
> so-called "brain-eating" amoeba.
> Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian
> foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer
> viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms
> in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially
> dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines.
> Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella
> vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine.
> Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.
>
> Q: Let me get this straight. These are all
> contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.
> A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what
> damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't
> really know, because no testing has been done, or
> very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You
> take your chances. Also, most people don't know
> that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines,
> rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been
> made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found
> what I believed were bacterial fragments and
> poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -
> which may have come from that fetal tissue. When
> you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come
> up with material that IS puzzling. You know it
> shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what
> you've got. I have found what I believed was a very
> small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus.
> I have found what can only be called "foreign
> protein," which could mean almost anything. It
> could mean protein from viruses.
>
> Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.
> A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material
> is going into the bloodstream without passing
> through some of the ordinary immune defences.
>
> Q: How were your findings received?
> A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be
> helped. In making vaccines, you use various
> animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of
> contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even
> mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde,
> mercury, and aluminium which are purposely put into
> vaccines.
>
> Q: This information is pretty staggering.
> A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the
> biological contaminants. Who knows how many others
> there are? Others we don't find because we don't
> think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird
> is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs
> can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no
> idea what they might be, or what effects they could
> have on humans.
>
> Q: And beyond the purity issue?
> A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise
> about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the
> immune system to create the conditions for immunity
> from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't
> work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create"
> antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection
> against disease. However, the immune system is much
> larger and more involved than antibodies and their
> related "killer cells."
>
> Q: The immune system is?
> A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's
> all immune system, you might say. That is why you
> can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those
> individuals who remain healthy.
>
> Q: So the level of general health is important.
> A: More than important. Vital.
>
> Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?
> A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that
> 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine
> come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver
> disease. But you can call liver disease many
> things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've
> concealed the root cause of the problem.
>
> Q: And that happens?
> A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors
> automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO
> NOT come down with the diseases they are now
> supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly
> what doctors assume. You see, it's circular
> reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no
> fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a
> vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets
> some other disease, the automatic assumption is,
> this had nothing to do with the disease.
>
> Q: In your years working in the vaccine
> establishment, how many doctors did you encounter
> who admitted that vaccines were a problem?
> A: None. There were a few who privately questioned
> what they were doing. But they would never go
> public, even within their companies.
>
> Q: What was the turning point for you?
> A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.
>
> Q: Did you investigate?
> A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was
> completely healthy before the vaccination. There
> was no reason for his death, except the vaccine.
> That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to
> believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a
> bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found
> that was not the case. I was being drawn into a
> spiral of doubt that increased over time. I
> continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to
> what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a
> scientific way.
>
> Q: What do you mean?
> A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any
> vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any
> careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption
> is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why
> should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine
> reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are
> said to occur very soon after the shot is given.
> But that does not make sense.
>
> Q: Why doesn't it make sense?
> A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body
> for a long period of time after it is given. A
> reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be
> gradual. Neurological problems can develop over
> time. They do in various conditions, even according
> to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be
> the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can
> occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with
> a vaccine which contains mercury?
>
> Q: And that is what you found?
> A: Yes. You're dealing with correlations, most of
> the time. Correlations are not perfect. But if you
> get 500 parents whose children have suffered
> neurological damage during a one-year period after
> having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark
> off an intense investigation.
>
> Q: Has it been enough?
> A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.
>
> Q: Which is?
> A: The people doing the investigation are not really
> interested in looking at the facts. They assume
> that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do
> investigate, they invariably come up with
> exonerations of the vaccines. They say, "This
> vaccine is safe." But what do they base those
> judgments on? They base them on definitions and
> ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of
> the vaccine.
>
> Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign
> has failed. Where people have come down with the
> disease against which they were vaccinated.
> A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there
> the evidence is simply ignored. It's discounted.
> The experts say, if they say anything at all, that
> this is just an isolated situation, but overall the
> vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add
> up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and
> disease have occurred, you realise that these are
> NOT isolated situations.
>
> Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about
> here with colleagues, when you were still working in
> the vaccine establishment?
> A: Yes I did.
>
> Q: What happened?
> A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was
> made clear that I should go back to work and forget
> my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered
> fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they
> could be labelled with "guilt by association." All
> in all, though, I behaved myself. I made sure I
> didn't create problems for myself.
>
> Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?
> A: First of all, there is no "if." They do harm.
> It becomes a more difficult question to decide
> whether they do harm in those people who seem to
> show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of
> research which should be done, but isn't.
> Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of
> map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what
> vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter.
> This research has not been done. As to why they are
> given, we could sit here for two days and discuss
> all the reasons. At different layers of the system
> people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a
> job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige,
> awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking
> habit, and so on.
>
> But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel,
> vaccines are a top priority because they cause a
> weakening of the immune system. I know that may be
> hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel,
> at the highest level, is not out to help people, it
> is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them.
> At one point in my career, I had a long
> conversation with a man who occupied a high
> government position in an African nation. He told
> me that he was well aware of this. He told me that
> WHO is a front for these depopulation interests.
> There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa,
> made up of various officials who are earnestly
> trying to change the lot of the poor. This network
> of people knows what is going on. They know that
> vaccines have been used, and are being used, to
> destroy their countries, to make them ripe for
> takeover by globalist powers. I have had the
> opportunity to speak with several of these people
> from this network.
>
> Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa,
> aware of the situation?
>
> A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is
> not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to
> realising the whole truth. He already knows that
> HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are
> poisons which destroy the immune system. He also
> knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the
> vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has
> enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.
>
> Q: This network you speak of.
> A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information
> about vaccines. The question is, how is a
> successful strategy going to be mounted? For these
> people, that is a difficult issue.
>
> Q: And in the industrialised nations?
> A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is
> diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom
> to question medicines. However, if the choice issue
> [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not
> gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines
> against biowarfare germs are going to win out. This
> is an important time.
>
> Q: The furore over the hepatitis B vaccine seems one
> good avenue.
> A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have
> the vaccine - and then in the next breath, admitting
> that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and
> shared needles - is a ridiculous juxtaposition.
> Medical authorities try to cover themselves by
> saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep
> B every year from "unknown causes," and that's why
> every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that
> 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it
> up.
>
> Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered
> the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has
> just been fired from his job in a London hospital.
> A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His
> correlations between the vaccine and autism are
> stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair's wife
> is involved with alternative health. There is the
> possibility that their child has not been given the
> MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in
> press interviews, and made it seem that he was
> simply objecting to invasive questioning of his
> "personal and family life." In any event, I believe
> his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the
> chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to
> all the families who have come forward and stated
> that their children were severely damaged by the
> MMR.
>
> Q: British reporters should try to get through to
> her.
> A: They have been trying. But I think she has made
> a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter
> what. She could do a great deal of good if she
> breaks her promise. I have been told she is under
> pressure, and not just from her husband. At the
> level she occupies, MI6 and British health
> authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a
> matter of national security.
>
> Q: Well, it is national security, once you
> understand the medical cartel.
> A: It is global security. The cartel operates in
> every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of
> vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same
> level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity
> of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic
> Church.
>
> Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating
> publicly that he will not take a vaccine is
> committing career suicide.
> A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the
> medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one
> of them is simply that an actor who is famous can
> draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING.
> In 1992, I was present at your demonstration
> against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two
> actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you
> would be hard pressed to find an actor who has
> spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.
>
> Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is
> the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?
> A: People are competing for research monies. The
> last thing they think about is challenging the
> status quo. They are already in an intramural war
> for that money. They don't need more trouble. This
> is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea
> that, by and large, modern medicine is very
> successful on every frontier. To admit systemic
> problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole
> enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is
> the last place one should think about holding
> demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If
> five thousand people showed up there demanding an
> accounting of the actual benefits of that research
> system, demanding to know what real health benefits
> have been conferred on the public from the billions
> of wasted dollars funnelled to that facility,
> something might start. A spark might go off. You
> might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of
> fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start
> leaking information.
>
> Q: A good idea.
> A: People in suits standing as close to the
> buildings as the police will allow. People in
> business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and
> babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts
> of people.
>
> Q: What about the combined destructive power of a
> number of vaccines given to babies these days?
> A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real
> studies of any depth which have been done on that.
> Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are
> safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given
> together are safe as well. But the truth is,
> vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential
> damage increases when you give many of them in a
> short time period.
>
> Q: Then we have the fall flu season.
> A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs
> float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows
> that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad
> cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.
>
> Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in
> the vaccine field?
> A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a
> little less. And I work in other ways. I give out
> information to certain people, when I think they
> will use it well.
>
> Q: What is one thing you want the public to
> understand?
> A: That the burden of proof in establishing the
> safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who
> manufacture and license them for public use. Just
> that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And
> for proof you need well-designed long-term studies.
> You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview
> mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about
> their babies and what happens to them after
> vaccination. You need all these things. The things
> that are not there.
>
> Q: The things that are not there.
> A: Yes.
>
> Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review,
> once more, the disease problems that vaccines can
> cause. Which diseases, how that happens.
> A: We are basically talking about two potential
> harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease
> from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the
> vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because,
> some version of the disease is in the vaccine to
> begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease,
> but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not,
> he develops another condition which is caused by the
> vaccine. That condition could be autism, what's
> called autism, or it could be some other disease
> like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.
>
> Q: Is there any way to compare the relative
> frequency of these different outcomes?
> A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only
> guess. f you ask, out of a population of a hundred
> thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how
> many get the measles, and how many develop other
> problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable
> answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are
> superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't
> get facts you can use. You only get stories, most
> of which are designed to enforce the superstition.
>
> But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece
> together a narrative that does reveal some very
> disturbing things. People have been harmed. The
> harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean
> death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as
> we have been led to believe. In the US, there are
> groups of mothers who are testifying about autism
> and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and
> standing up at meetings. They are essentially trying
> to fill in the gap that has been created by the
> researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the
> whole thing.
>
> Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in,
> say, Boston and you raised that child with good
> nutritious food and he exercised every day and he
> was loved by his parents, and he didn't get the
> measles vaccine, what would be his health status
> compared with the average child in Boston who eats
> poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets
> the measles vaccine?
> A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I
> would bet on the better health status for the first
> child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is
> nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than
> the measles the second child might get. I would bet
> on the first child every time.
>
> Q: How long did you work with vaccines?
> A: A long time. Longer than ten years.
>
> Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason
> to say that vaccines are successful?
> A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last
> thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move
> out of the state if I had to. I would change the
> family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm
> not saying it would come to that. There are ways to
> sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to
> act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every
> state, based on religious and/or philosophic views.
> But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.
>
> Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get
> vaccines and appear to be healthy.
> A: The operative word is "appear." What about all
> the children who can't focus on their studies? What
> about the children who have tantrums from time to
> time? What about the children who are not quite in
> possession of all their mental faculties? I know
> there are many causes for these things, but vaccines
> are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see
> no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no
> reason to allow the government to have the last
> word. Government medicine is, from my experience,
> often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the
> other, but not both.
>
> Q: So we come to the level playing field.
> A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take
> them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them.
> But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing
> field if the field is strewn with lies. And when
> babies are involved, you have parents making all the
> decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of
> truth. What about the child I spoke of who died
> from the DPT shot? What information did his parents
> act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It
> was not real information.
>
> Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press,
> scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios
> about what will happen if their kids don't get
> shots.
> A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine.
> They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that
> with better information. It is always a challenge
> to buck the authorities. And only you can decide
> whether to do it. It is every person's
> responsibility to make up his mind. The medical
> cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear
> will win.
>
_________________________________________________________________
>
> Dr. Mark Randall (pseudonym) was a vaccine
> researcher for many years in the labs of major
> pharmaceutical houses and the US government's
> National Institutes of Health.
> He retired during the last decade.
> He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under
> the cover of anonymity, but with the current push to
> make vaccines mandatory --with penalties like
> quarantine lurking in the wings - he has decided to
> break his silence.
> He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of
> my long-time sources, he has developed a conscience
> about his former work. Mark is well aware of the
> scope of the medical cartel and its goals of
> depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation
> of populations.
>

All the best
Joan


Joan

United Kingdom
599 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2006 :  15:32:03  Show Profile  Visit Joan's Homepage  Reply with Quote
If you have the time please read this article
Joan
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support © 2000-2002 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05