Re: Wayne, please respond.

October 6, 2008

The number of clinical trials (including the recent study out of India) are

evidence enough.

If you want to go down the road of comparisons, take a look at the number of

prescription drugs on the market that are approved, but actually do nothing.

In fact, many of them do more harm than good. Then, let's look at some

surgeries. How many people have back surgeries and end up worse than they were

before the surgery. However, not only are they approved, but they are very

expensive.

Let's face it. If you want something approved, it only takes one thing: money.

That is what needs to change.

I do apologize for being rude to you in the past. I just have a hard time

putting up with people who stand in the way of others who are trying to get

themselves, or their loved ones better.

Every comment you make stands in the way of progress for those who cannot afford

your expensive clinics.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

[ ] Wayne, please respond.

>

> So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure cancer that have

100's of

people improving on a diet including their product should get reimbursement..?

Or maybe

the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in cancer along with

the coffee

enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the use of

chymopapin in

the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until double blind

studies

proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound deriding

enzyme).? The

reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of your

protocol or

product.

>

> Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

>

Wayne,

The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS indications,

including decompression sickness.

Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual meeting in

Boston, 1999.

DF

Freels

http://www.davidfreels.com

david@...

October 6, 2008

One more thing, and this isn't backing the alternative cancer treatments, but

take a look at the success rate of chemo and radiation. Not good!

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

[ ] Wayne, please respond.

>

> So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure cancer that have

100's of

people improving on a diet including their product should get reimbursement..?

Or maybe

the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in cancer along with

the coffee

enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the use of

chymopapin in

the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until double blind

studies

proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound deriding

enzyme).? The

reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of your

protocol or

product.

>

> Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

>

Wayne,

The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS indications,

including decompression sickness.

Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual meeting in

Boston, 1999.

DF

Freels

http://www.davidfreels.com

david@...

October 6, 2008

To All,

The real issue is not the volume of research that is present for HBOT for CP.

The real issue is that there is far more peer reviewed published

research for HBOT for CP than almost any other FDA approved drug.

We have to compare the research for HBOT for CP compared to other

drugs for CP.... not adult drugs.

Second, it has to be remembered that CP is an " Orphan

Condition " . This means that since there are less than 250,000 new

patients each year (only 10,000 new CP patients each year). This is

important because it means that the research required for FDA

approval and FDA Approved marketing and Reimbursement is extremely

different than that required for FDA approval for high population drugs.

In fact, some Orphan Drugs are approved by the FDA and approved for

reimbursement with as few as 1 single patient studied!

Finally, it must be noted that segmenting out our kids for

systematically denying them their Federal Rights for medical care,

and denying them their Civil Rights (like Jimmy Freels has been

denied) rises to the level of " Crimes Against Humanity " .

These are the same crimes that the Nazi's were convicted on (except

their's occurred during war. but that makes no difference as far as

convictions go).

HBOT is published and proven to work for CP beyond any other drug

except Baclephen Pumps... which were proven with proper studies only

years after they had been approved for reimbursement.

Those are the facts, adn those are the crimes that people are

committing when they deny care to our kids.

Blessings,

Ed

At 05:47 PM 10/6/2008, you wrote:

>The number of clinical trials (including the recent study out of

>India) are evidence enough.

>

>If you want to go down the road of comparisons, take a look at the

>number of prescription drugs on the market that are approved, but

>actually do nothing.

>In fact, many of them do more harm than good. Then, let's look at

>some surgeries. How many people have back surgeries and end up worse

>than they were before the surgery. However, not only are they

>approved, but they are very expensive.

>

>Let's face it. If you want something approved, it only takes one

>thing: money. That is what needs to change.

>

>I do apologize for being rude to you in the past. I just have a hard

>time putting up with people who stand in the way of others who are

>trying to get themselves, or their loved ones better.

>

>Every comment you make stands in the way of progress for those who

>cannot afford your expensive clinics.

>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>

> [ ] Wayne, please respond.

>

> >

> > So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure

> cancer that have 100's of

>people improving on a diet including their product should get

>reimbursement..? Or maybe

>the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in

>cancer along with the coffee

>enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the

>use of chymopapin in

>the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until

>double blind studies

>proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound

>deriding enzyme).? The

>reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of

>your protocol or

>product.

> >

> > Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

> >

>

>Wayne,

>

>The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS

>indications,

>including decompression sickness.

>

>Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual meeting in

>Boston, 1999.

>

>DF

>

> Freels

><http://www.davidfreels.com>http://www.davidfreels.com

><mailto:david%40davidfreels.com>david@...

>

October 7, 2008

Although hyperbarics can be expensive, our unit writes off as many treatments as

we get paid for and to get around the Investigational reimbursement we treat

some as inpatients.? While they are inpatients the hospital is paid according to

DRG's.? If I can convince the case manager and the physician that we might

decrease the length of stay by using HBO, it gets done for quite a few patients

and several times have been able to continue on an outpatient basis by proving

through PET scans there has been improvement.

The problem I have is have refereed several cases of CP/Autism to clinics in

Florida where have had 3 different patients go through 3 series of 40 treatments

and pronounced to have had marked improvement by the clinic in Florida.? When

evaluated upon return to Savannah the patients had minimal improvement which

disappeared within a month.? I have a problem with families spending so much

time, energy, effort and money on minimal benefits.

In the past have pushed for the use of HBO in the treatment of side effects from

MS and CVA because the benefits have seen are measurable and sustainable (with

tune ups in the case of MS).? At the present time we are waiting for a

multi-center study on CVA/Acute stroke to start and have signed up to be one of

the centers going to study the use in TB (we are in between several military

bases here with multiple cases returning from overseas).?

One of the problems I have is when attempt to use the " studies " is the first

question from the physicians is " are the peer reviewed " .? It doesn't help that

most of the ones you quo ate are from countries not exactly known for medical

research being published in journals that no one has ever heard of before.?

Another problem is the bashing of the UHMS in the slow pace of research.? Name

any other organization in hyperbarics that sponsors the research it does.? It

doesn't help that we have to keep proving to the medical establishment that

accepted treatment indications truly work (ie. redoing Marx's work in the

radiation injuries).? Although it may seem like " mainstream hyperbarics " is

standing in the way, what most of the people I know want is for " mild

hyperbarics " to prove yourself in the same manner we have had to in the past.?

It doesn't help when you have people in " mild hyperbarics " saying that they can

treat the same indications with the same benefits when it is known to be false.

?

Wayne D. McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

[ ] Wayne, please respond.

& gt;

& gt; So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure cancer that

have 100's of

people improving on a diet including their product should get reimbursement..?

Or maybe

the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in cancer along with

the coffee

enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the use of

chymopapin in

the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until double blind

studies

proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound deriding

enzyme).? The

reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of your

protocol or

product.

& gt;

& gt; Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

& gt;

Wayne,

The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS indications,

including decompression sickness.

Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual meeting in

Boston, 1999.

DF

Freels

http://www.davidfreels.com

david@...

October 7, 2008

Wayne,

Thanks for answering my question by not answering my question.

Also, please have your Savannah CP families contact me; re: further HBOT. Cell

404-725-4520. Email: @...

DF

[ ] Wayne, please respond.

>

>>

>

>> So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure cancer that have

100's of

>

>people improving on a diet including their product should get reimbursement..?

Or maybe

>

>the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in cancer along

with the coffee

>

>enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the use of

chymopapin in

>

>the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until double blind

studies

>

>proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound deriding

enzyme).? The

>

>reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of your

protocol or

>

>product.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

>

>>

>

>Wayne,

>

>The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS indications,

>

>including decompression sickness.

>

>Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual meeting in

>

>Boston, 1999.

>

>DF

>

> Freels

>

>http://www.davidfreels.com

>

>david@...

>

October 7, 2008

Wayne,

The PVHO does not write regulations. They are not a regulating body.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

[ ] Wayne, please respond.

>

>>

>

>> So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure cancer that have

100's of

>

>people improving on a diet including their product should get reimbursement..?

Or maybe

>

>the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in cancer along

with the coffee

>

>enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the use of

chymopapin in

>

>the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until double blind

studies

>

>proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound deriding

enzyme).? The

>

>reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of your

protocol or

>

>product.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

>

>>

>

>Wayne,

>

>The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS indications,

>

>including decompression sickness.

>

>Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual meeting in

>

>Boston, 1999.

>

>DF

>

> Freels

>

>http://www.davidfreels.com

>

>david@...

>

October 7, 2008

The reason why regression occurs after the cessation of HBOT is

that for brain and neurological disorders, ongoing HBOT for a number

of years is often necessary to avoid regression.

Many children with autism, cerebral palsy, and pediatric brain

injuries do hundreds of sessions of HBOT over a period of years

before they plateau and stop seeing improvements. Normally, after

300 - 700 sessions, children can stop HBOT without experiencing

regression.

If the treatments are stopped too soon, all benefits are lost.

That's why so many families invest in portable hyperbaric chambers.

Diane

>

> & gt;

>

> & gt; So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure

cancer that have 100's of

>

> people improving on a diet including their product should get

reimbursement..? Or maybe

>

> the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in

cancer along with the coffee

>

> enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the

use of chymopapin in

>

> the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until

double blind studies

>

> proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound

deriding enzyme).? The

>

> reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of

your protocol or

>

> product.

>

> & gt;

>

> & gt;

>

> & gt; Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

>

> & gt;

>

> Wayne,

>

> The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS

indications,

>

> including decompression sickness.

>

> Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual

meeting in

>

> Boston, 1999.

>

> DF

>

> Freels

>

> http://www.davidfreels.com

>

> david@...

>

October 7, 2008

Diane,

You are a new comer to HBOT, and I don't know your background, but

you are not experienced in HBOT to make such statements.

The issue of regression in autism patients has everything to do with

what was done before HBOT, and little to do with continuing treatments.

Please, if you don; tknow what you are talking about, please keep

silent. Families have to sacrifice a lot to do all this and they

need facts to mover their kids forward.

Sorry to be harsh. But, this is an important point.

Ed

At 08:21 PM 10/7/2008, you wrote:

>The reason why regression occurs after the cessation of HBOT is

>that for brain and neurological disorders, ongoing HBOT for a number

>of years is often necessary to avoid regression.

>

>Many children with autism, cerebral palsy, and pediatric brain

>injuries do hundreds of sessions of HBOT over a period of years

>before they plateau and stop seeing improvements. Normally, after

>300 - 700 sessions, children can stop HBOT without experiencing

>regression.

>

>If the treatments are stopped too soon, all benefits are lost.

>That's why so many families invest in portable hyperbaric chambers.

>

>Diane

>

> >

> > & gt;

> >

> > & gt; So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure

>cancer that have 100's of

> >

> > people improving on a diet including their product should get

>reimbursement..? Or maybe

> >

> > the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in

>cancer along with the coffee

> >

> > enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the

>use of chymopapin in

> >

> > the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until

>double blind studies

> >

> > proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound

>deriding enzyme).? The

> >

> > reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of

>your protocol or

> >

> > product.

> >

> > & gt;

> >

> > & gt;

> >

> > & gt; Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

> >

> > & gt;

> >

> > Wayne,

> >

> > The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS

>indications,

> >

> > including decompression sickness.

> >

> > Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual

>meeting in

> >

> > Boston, 1999.

> >

> > DF

> >

> > Freels

> >

> > <http://www.davidfreels.com>http://www.davidfreels.com

> >

> > david@...

> >

October 8, 2008

I have never seen regression in any children using Hard Chamber HBOT. My

daughter has had 160 treatments over the past 3.5 years with NO

regression..along with MANY kids I know who have been treated. We will

continue, like you say, until we don't see any more improvements.

Pridmore

_____

From: medicaid

[mailto:medicaid ] On Behalf Of hbotforhealth

Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 11:22 PM

medicaid

Subject: [ ] Re: Wayne, please respond.

The reason why regression occurs after the cessation of HBOT is

that for brain and neurological disorders, ongoing HBOT for a number

of years is often necessary to avoid regression.

Many children with autism, cerebral palsy, and pediatric brain

injuries do hundreds of sessions of HBOT over a period of years

before they plateau and stop seeing improvements. Normally, after

300 - 700 sessions, children can stop HBOT without experiencing

regression.

If the treatments are stopped too soon, all benefits are lost.

That's why so many families invest in portable hyperbaric chambers.

Diane

>

> & gt;

>

> & gt; So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure

cancer that have 100's of

>

> people improving on a diet including their product should get

reimbursement..? Or maybe

>

> the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in

cancer along with the coffee

>

> enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the

use of chymopapin in

>

> the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until

double blind studies

>

> proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound

deriding enzyme).? The

>

> reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of

your protocol or

>

> product.

>

> & gt;

>

> & gt;

>

> & gt; Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

>

> & gt;

>

> Wayne,

>

> The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS

indications,

>

> including decompression sickness.

>

> Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual

meeting in

>

> Boston, 1999.

>

> DF

>

> Freels

>

> http://www.davidfre <http://www.davidfreels.com> els.com

>

> david@...

>

October 8, 2008

That is the problem with boards like this and proves the saying that " a little

knowledge is a dangerous thing " .? Too many people who have used the internet to

do their research and believe everything some of the pseudo-professionals post

about subjects they have minimal knowledge or training in.

?

Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

Re: [ ] Re: Wayne, please respond.

Diane,

You are a new comer to HBOT, and I don't know your background, but

you are not experienced in HBOT to make such statements.

The issue of regression in autism patients has everything to do with

what was done before HBOT, and little to do with continuing treatments.

Please, if you don; tknow what you are talking about, please keep

silent. Families have to sacrifice a lot to do all this and they

need facts to mover their kids forward.

Sorry to be harsh. But, this is an important point.

Ed

At 08:21 PM 10/7/2008, you wrote:

& gt;The reason why regression occurs after the cessation of HBOT is

& gt;that for brain and neurological disorders, ongoing HBOT for a number

& gt;of years is often necessary to avoid regression.

& gt;

& gt;Many children with autism, cerebral palsy, and pediatric brain

& gt;injuries do hundreds of sessions of HBOT over a period of years

& gt;before they plateau and stop seeing improvements. Normally, after

& gt;300 - 700 sessions, children can stop HBOT without experiencing

& gt;regression.

& gt;

& gt;If the treatments are stopped too soon, all benefits are lost.

& gt;That's why so many families invest in portable hyperbaric chambers.

& gt;

& gt;Diane

& gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & gt; So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure

& gt;cancer that have 100's of

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; people improving on a diet including their product should get

& gt;reimbursement..? Or maybe

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in

& gt;cancer along with the coffee

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the

& gt;use of chymopapin in

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until

& gt;double blind studies

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound

& gt;deriding enzyme).? The

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of

& gt;your protocol or

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; product.

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & gt; Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; Wayne,

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS

& gt;indications,

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; including decompression sickness.

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual

& gt;meeting in

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; Boston, 1999.

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; DF

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; Freels

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & lt;http://www.davidfreels.com & gt;http://www.davidfreels.com

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; david@...

& gt; & gt;

October 8, 2008

Gave your name phone # and email address?to the women in charge of pediatric

outpatient rehab that works with 2 of the mentioned patients and will try and

get in touch with the 3rd (they moved to Brunswick).

?

Wayne D. McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

[ ] Wayne, please respond.

& gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt;

& gt; & gt; So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure cancer that

have 100's of

& gt;

& gt;people improving on a diet including their product should get

reimbursement..? Or maybe

& gt;

& gt;the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in cancer along

with the coffee

& gt;

& gt;enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the use of

chymopapin in

& gt;

& gt;the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until double

blind studies

& gt;

& gt;proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound deriding

enzyme).? The

& gt;

& gt;reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of your

protocol or

& gt;

& gt;product.

& gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt;

& gt; & gt; Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

& gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt;

& gt;Wayne,

& gt;

& gt;The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS

indications,

& gt;

& gt;including decompression sickness.

& gt;

& gt;Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual meeting

in

& gt;

& gt;Boston, 1999.

& gt;

& gt;DF

& gt;

& gt; Freels

& gt;

& gt;http://www.davidfreels.com

& gt;

& gt;david@...

& gt;

October 8, 2008

And I can tell you here and now that a lot of people are being turned off by

all of the nonsense and bickering on these boards. Hats off to you,

and Wayne. You guys know what you are talking about!

_____

From: medicaid

[mailto:medicaid ] On Behalf Of MackRN@...

Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:10 AM

medicaid

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Wayne, please respond.

That is the problem with boards like this and proves the saying that " a

little knowledge is a dangerous thing " .? Too many people who have used the

internet to do their research and believe everything some of the

pseudo-professionals post about subjects they have minimal knowledge or

training in.

?

Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

Re: [ ] Re: Wayne, please respond.

Diane,

You are a new comer to HBOT, and I don't know your background, but

you are not experienced in HBOT to make such statements.

The issue of regression in autism patients has everything to do with

what was done before HBOT, and little to do with continuing treatments.

Please, if you don; tknow what you are talking about, please keep

silent. Families have to sacrifice a lot to do all this and they

need facts to mover their kids forward.

Sorry to be harsh. But, this is an important point.

Ed

At 08:21 PM 10/7/2008, you wrote:

& gt;The reason why regression occurs after the cessation of HBOT is

& gt;that for brain and neurological disorders, ongoing HBOT for a number

& gt;of years is often necessary to avoid regression.

& gt;

& gt;Many children with autism, cerebral palsy, and pediatric brain

& gt;injuries do hundreds of sessions of HBOT over a period of years

& gt;before they plateau and stop seeing improvements. Normally, after

& gt;300 - 700 sessions, children can stop HBOT without experiencing

& gt;regression.

& gt;

& gt;If the treatments are stopped too soon, all benefits are lost.

& gt;That's why so many families invest in portable hyperbaric chambers.

& gt;

& gt;Diane

& gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & gt; So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure

& gt;cancer that have 100's of

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; people improving on a diet including their product should get

& gt;reimbursement..? Or maybe

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in

& gt;cancer along with the coffee

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the

& gt;use of chymopapin in

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until

& gt;double blind studies

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound

& gt;deriding enzyme).? The

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency

of

& gt;your protocol or

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; product.

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & gt; Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; Wayne,

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS

& gt;indications,

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; including decompression sickness.

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual

& gt;meeting in

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; Boston, 1999.

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; DF

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; Freels

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; & lt;http://www.davidfre

<http://www.davidfreels.com & gt;http:/www.davidfreels.com>

els.com & gt;http://www.davidfreels.com

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; david@...

& gt; & gt;

October 8, 2008

Wayne Regarding your statement.....

YOUR STATEMENT : It doesn't help when you have people in " mild hyperbarics "

saying that they can treat the same indications with the same benefits when it

is known to be false

What basis do you have. OK let's look at this correctly HAVE YOU DONE A DOUBLE

BLIND CONTROLLED STUDY TO SUBSTANCIATE THIS CLAIM.

HAS THE UHMS DONE A DOUBLE BLIND CONTROLLED STUDY TO SUBSTANCIATE THIS CLAIM?

Where are the PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED MEDICAL DOCUMENTS to substanciate these

claims you are making. Are they published in peer reviewed Journals.

Please provide me with the documents that state these same benefits cannot be

met in the protables. I would love to review them. Please provide a copy of the

double blind controlled studies you or someone has performed.

OH ME OH MY look's as if your in the same damn boat I was in in 2001.However I

was using a Monoplace my friend trying to prove my statement to the medical

board making the decision on our case. This is the information they asked me

for. So now my freind IM asking you for the same information. IF your claim is

that and I quote " It doesn't help when you have people in " mild hyperbarics "

saying that they can treat the same indications with the same benefits when it

is known to be false. " Then provide the peer reviewed information to support it.

Provide the double blind controlled studies to support it.

IM WAITING FOR THIS INFORMATION;;;;; CAN YOU PRODUCE IT.....

From: Freels <dfreels@...>

Subject: Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

medicaid

Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 3:25 PM

Wayne,

Thanks for answering my question by not answering my question.

Also, please have your Savannah CP families contact me; re: further HBOT. Cell

404-725-4520. Email: davidfreels (DOT) com

DF

[ ] Wayne, please respond.

>

>>

>

>> So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure cancer that have

100's of

>

>people improving on a diet including their product should get reimbursement. .?

Or maybe

>

>the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in cancer along

with the coffee

>

>enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the use of

chymopapin in

>

>the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until double blind

studies

>

>proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound deriding

enzyme).? The

>

>reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of your

protocol or

>

>product.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

>

>>

>

>Wayne,

>

>The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS indications,

>

>including decompression sickness.

>

>Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual meeting in

>

>Boston, 1999.

>

>DF

>

> Freels

>

>http://www.davidfre els.com

>

>daviddavidfreels (DOT) com

>

October 8, 2008

To clear up a few matters about PVHO and UHMS and FDA the reason I stated the

claims I made about PVHO is not becuase the set regulations. Tom has reffered to

the fact that the portables do not have PVHO clerance.

Ok first they do not have to have this clerance. It has been said that in order

for them to be considered safe and effective they must have this clerance. That

is also a mistruth. First when the FDA finds that these devices are safe and

effective they will issue a clerance. This is retrun overides the PVHO there is

no need. Overall the FDA has allready cleared the device.

Now there has been some claims made about smoke filling a chamber. How many has

acutally checked the story out. In fact what happened in this instance there was

a person that inserted fragrance oil into the filter of the pump which is a

violation of the usage of the chamber. So in fact there was no problem with the

device at all. This was human error.

Now If I take lets say a Interal feeding pump that is used to feed a child

through a g-tube and I insert let's say Motor oil into the pump and the child

get's sick is that something that makes the feeding pump unsafe or effective..

NO WHAT has happened here is it was used outside the standards set by the

distributor of that device. Therefore it was human error.

What we must all realize is that certain individuals are or want this device to

go up for PVHO clerance because they know that the UHMS and PVHO sleep in the

same bed and will not approve this device in hopes it will remove them from the

market.

What we must also realize is this indication Neurological is not and will not be

approved or considered an indication by the UHMS they do not want it approved.

There has been countless number of improvments with HBOT for brain injury and

Autism and CP the list goes on. We all are on here fighting the obvious.

Now my question is this HOW MANY HAVE ACTUALLY FILED FOR MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR

THIS TREATMENT.

If you haven't done so why are you really here. What is your purpose. I have

filled with the state of Texas and Lost at the hands of the UHMS for not

considering this a recognized treatment saying it was considered experimental

and investigational.

I know most of my post have nothing to do with Medicaid for HBOT. On one side

they do. However there is alot of burocracy that is in the way and I get turned

around at times.

This is what I ask everyone. has worked hard to build this list serv for

the purpose of reimbursement. We all come on here and vent say what we have to

say. But I encourage everyone that has filed to say so. If you have not filed

for coverage find out how.

The obvious way to make a powerfull statement to the goverment and to get this

approved is to flood there office with request to pay for what we all allready

know that works.

The best way to get back on track of what the list serv is about is to all file

our claim's. One by one and appeal accordingly. The best way to get this

approved is not through a double blind controlled study but it is to use the

resources that we allready have and that have been proven to work. e Creacy

had the state of Texas pay for treatments allready for Bill. has got a

really good case with the state of Georgia and some other states have paid. So

now we need a rep from every state to get on board and move forward. Crap or get

off the pot.

I have filed my claim and lost my child has past on. I will help anyone that

wants to file as will .

If you are on this list and have not filed for coverage you should be ashamed of

yourself now let me get this straight. IF you can file some on here do not have

medicaid so they can't file Im speaking to those whom do and should have

allready filed.

If this offends anyone then it proably means you need to file. If your guilty

that is when a post like this usally offends you.

From: szymonski@... <szymonski@...>

Subject: Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

medicaid

Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 3:32 PM

Wayne,

The PVHO does not write regulations. They are not a regulating body.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

[ ] Wayne, please respond.

>

>>

>

>> So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure cancer that have

100's of

>

>people improving on a diet including their product should get reimbursement. .?

Or maybe

>

>the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in cancer along

with the coffee

>

>enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the use of

chymopapin in

>

>the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until double blind

studies

>

>proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound deriding

enzyme).? The

>

>reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of your

protocol or

>

>product.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

>

>>

>

>Wayne,

>

>The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS indications,

>

>including decompression sickness.

>

>Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual meeting in

>

>Boston, 1999.

>

>DF

>

> Freels

>

>http://www.davidfre els.com

>

>daviddavidfreels (DOT) com

>

October 8, 2008

Diane,

This information is false and misleading. Please do more research prior to

posting incorrect information.

Our daughter has never had a regression, and we have only done 80 sessions of

HBOT.

________________________________

> medicaid

> From: diane@...

> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 03:21:55 +0000

> Subject: [ ] Re: Wayne, please respond.

>

> The reason why regression occurs after the cessation of HBOT is

> that for brain and neurological disorders, ongoing HBOT for a number

> of years is often necessary to avoid regression.

>

> Many children with autism, cerebral palsy, and pediatric brain

> injuries do hundreds of sessions of HBOT over a period of years

> before they plateau and stop seeing improvements. Normally, after

> 300 - 700 sessions, children can stop HBOT without experiencing

> regression.

>

> If the treatments are stopped too soon, all benefits are lost.

> That's why so many families invest in portable hyperbaric chambers.

>

> Diane

>

>>

>>>

>>

>>> So using that approach the people pushing Green Tea to cure

> cancer that have 100's of

>>

>> people improving on a diet including their product should get

> reimbursement..? Or maybe

>>

>> the use of laetrile in the past that was the next big thing in

> cancer along with the coffee

>>

>> enemas that were " proven' to cure cancer.? Of course there was the

> use of chymopapin in

>>

>> the treatment of bulging discs that was the next big thing until

> double blind studies

>>

>> proved it useless (except today as the main ingredient in a wound

> deriding enzyme).? The

>>

>> reason you use the double blind study is to prove the efficiency of

> your protocol or

>>

>> product.

>>

>>>

>>

>>>

>>

>>> Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

>>

>>>

>>

>> Wayne,

>>

>> The scientific evidence has only been produced in 4 of the 13 UHMS

> indications,

>>

>> including decompression sickness.

>>

>> Source: UHMS Ethics Committee Report. Presented at the UHMS annual

> meeting in

>>

>> Boston, 1999.

>>

>> DF

>>

>> Freels

>>

>> http://www.davidfreels.com

>>

>> david@...

>>

October 9, 2008

In some cases, yes there have been double blind studies concerning the most

efficient pressures for different indications. In others a knowledge of

the biophysics of hyperbaric medicine is combined with previous studies to

develop treatment protocols.

The best overall study was Dr. Marx's original work on the treatment of Late

Effects of Radiation with HBOT. It compared the efficiency of multiple

treatment pressures and it was found that 2.5 ATA was the best. This was

recently

reproved in Richland Memorial (Dick s program) multi-center study on the

treatment of Radiation Proctitis.

I have measured the tissue oxygen levels using TCOMS in the hyperbaric

chamber with 100% oxygen at 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 ATA. We found that the oxygen

tissue

levels did not reach the therapeutic levels that animal tissue studies prove

are needed to heal compromised wounds until the patient reached 2.0 ATA. We

also tested the patient at 1.5 ATA (never occurred to us to test at 1.3 ATA)

with the chamber pressurized with air. The tissue levels reached were about

the same as we reached during an oxygen challenge at room pressure.

Borema's work in the study " Life Without Blood " shows that a minimum of of

2.0 ATA with 100% oxygen must be reached to saturate the plasma with oxygen in

the treatment of Exceptional Blood Loss Anemia. Lower pressures were shown to

increase the amount of time the symptoms of hypoxia took to diminish.

In the case of arterial gas embolism just knowing the gas laws in physics

provides the answers in treatment protocol. The pressure exerted inside the

chamber is what decreases that size of the bubble and the 100% oxygen causes the

isobaric counterdiffusion which causes it to be absorbed.

In the case of CO poisoning previous double blind studies at 2.0 & 2.5 ATA

has shown that the half life of the carboxyhemaglobin decreases quicker at 2.5

ATA with 100% oxygen (21 minutes). At room pressure with 100% oxygen the half

life of carboxyhemaglobin approximately 6 hr. and 15 minutes. The is a

current multi-center study ongoing to again prove the appropriate treatment

protocol.

While it is true not all indications have been double blind studied against

the claims of mHBOT, in most cases it is known what is the most efficient

pressure to treat the patient with oxygen. In a lot of the double blind

studies

the control group is treated with the equivalent of mHBOT. I know in the

study we are planning next year or migraines, the control group will be treated

at

1.3 ATA with air.

Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

In a message dated 10/8/08 1:59:48 PM, darin_bryant@... writes:

>

> Wayne Regarding your statement... W

>

> YOUR STATEMENT : It doesn't help when you have people in " mild hyperbarics "

> saying that they can treat the same indications with the same benefits when

> it is known to be false

>

> What basis do you have. OK let's look at this correctly HAVE YOU DONE A

> DOUBLE BLIND CONTROLLED STUDY TO SUBSTANCIATE THIS CLAIM.

>

> HAS THE UHMS DONE A DOUBLE BLIND CONTROLLED STUDY TO SUBSTANCIATE THIS

> CLAIM?

>

> Where are the PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED MEDICAL DOCUMENTS to substanciate

> these claims you are making. Are they published in peer reviewed Journals.

>

> Please provide me with the documents that state these same benefits cannot

> be met in the protables. I would love to review them. Please provide a copy of

> the double blind controlled studies you or someone has performed.

>

> OH ME OH MY look's as if your in the same damn boat I was in in 2001.However

> I was using a Monoplace my friend trying to prove my statement to the

> medical board making the decision on our case. This is the information they

asked

> me for. So now my freind IM asking you for the same information. IF your claim

> is that and I quote " It doesn't help when you have people in " mild

> hyperbarics " saying that they can treat the same indications with the same

benefits

> when it is known to be false. " Then provide the peer reviewed information to

> support it. Provide the double blind controlled studies to support it.

>

> IM WAITING FOR THIS INFORMATION; IM WAITING FOR THIS INFORMA

>

> From: Freels <dfreels@...>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

> medicaid@medicaidforhmed

> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 3:25 PM

>

> Wayne,

>

> Thanks for answering my question by not answering my question.

>

> Also, please have your Savannah CP families contact me; re: further HBOT.

> Cell 404-725-4520. Email: davidfreels (DOT) com

>

> DF

>

> Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

> >

> >The number of clinical trials (including the recent study out of India) are

> evidence enough.

> >

> >If you want to g

>

**************

New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out

(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)

October 9, 2008

If I were you I would read some studies from some other sources. You are basing

much of your claims on the studies of one or two people.

Regardless, mhbot works, and that is not disputeable.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

> >

> >The number of clinical trials (including the recent study out of India) are

> evidence enough.

> >

> >If you want to g

>

**************

New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out

(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)

October 9, 2008

I think I am lost on this thread....

mhbot works for what (that is indisputable?)

THanks

At 05:23 PM 10/9/2008, you wrote:

>If I were you I would read some studies from some other sources. You

>are basing much of your claims on the studies of one or two people.

>

>Regardless, mhbot works, and that is not disputeable.

>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>

> Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

> > >

> > >The number of clinical trials (including the recent study out of

> India) are

> > evidence enough.

> > >

> > >If you want to g

> >

>

>**************

>New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

>Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out

>(<http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>http://local.mapquest.com/?\

ncid=emlcntnew00000002)

>

October 9, 2008

Ed,

Many different conditions. My point is that Wayne has continually denied that

mhbot works at all. Specifically in the following, which is copied from one of

his earlier posts:

anaerobic infections (gas gangrene, necrotizing fasciitis, fourniers gangrene,

crepitant cellulitis), arterial gas embolisms, late effects radiation injuries

(radiation cystitis, proctitis, enteritis, myelits, soft tissue radiation

injuries and osteoradionecrosis) as well as mundane indications line

preservation of skin flap/grafts and diabetic ulcers.

Mhbot (1.3 and 1.5) does work in all of the above.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

> > >

> > >The number of clinical trials (including the recent study out of

> India) are

> > evidence enough.

> > >

> > >If you want to g

> >

>

>**************

>New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

>Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out

>(<http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>http://local.mapquest.com/?\

ncid=emlcntnew00000002)

>

October 9, 2008

The other problem with his last post is using mhbot with ambient air as a

control group. This is not a true control group. Also, many of the recent

studies, most recently out of India, show no significant difference in results

between 1.3 with air, and 1.5 and 1.75 with 100% 02.

I know this study was done on CP patients, but the results hold true with many

other conditions, such as those listed by Wayne.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

> > >

> > >The number of clinical trials (including the recent study out of

> India) are

> > evidence enough.

> > >

> > >If you want to g

> >

>

>**************

>New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

>Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out

>(<http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>http://local.mapquest.com/?\

ncid=emlcntnew00000002)

>

October 10, 2008

In the hyperbaric unit at work I have thousands of articles that are files by

indications or specialties.? The librarian has a service that forwards all

current articles from credible sources to me.? From these lists I pick over a

hundred articles a month in the area of hyperbarics to read and distribute to

the physician in the hyperbaric program here at the hospital. My goal is to get

a scanner and tuen everything into PDF format for easier storage and

dissemination, but haven't even had the time to set up the scanner the education

department got for me.? I read more than one or two sources as you suggest and

tend to stay on top of what is happening in the field.

?

Wayne McHowell, RN, BSN, ONC, CHRNA

Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt;The number of clinical trials (including the recent study out of India)

are

& gt; evidence enough.

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt;If you want to g

& gt;

**************

New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out

(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)

October 11, 2008

Hi ???

Look, I don't know your name, so I cannot address you directly.

But, you are blowing smoke if you are telling us that mHBO works for

all those conditions and has proof.

Either, you haven't read the publications, or you just have no clue

about this area of study.

There ARE NOT STUDIES on anything for mHBO, except Rossignols autism

papers and the McGill study on CP. And, neither showed optimal

results. There is a reason, that after the McGill study, that my

very good friend Pierre Marois refers only 1.5 ATA HBOT.

There is not is condition you listed that mhbo is supported by the literature!!

Look, compared to mhbo medicinal HBOT for osteomyelitis provides 10

times (1000% the dosage as mhbo) that comparison is like taking a

tiny sliver of a single aspirin tablet verses 2 tablets. It might be

helpful, but it isn't what is supported by any doctor out

there. And, certainly no physician is going to stake his license on that!

So, guys, I appreciate that you want to sell you chambers, but you

are going to incur the wrath of god if you don't clean up your acts.

This is a serious board est. ONLY to help families.

So, peddle your chambers and your trashing " science " some place else!

Ed Nemeth

At 06:44 PM 10/9/2008, you wrote:

>Ed,

>

>Many different conditions. My point is that Wayne has continually

>denied that mhbot works at all. Specifically in the following, which

>is copied from one of his earlier posts:

>

>anaerobic infections (gas gangrene, necrotizing fasciitis, fourniers

>gangrene, crepitant cellulitis), arterial gas embolisms, late

>effects radiation injuries (radiation cystitis, proctitis,

>enteritis, myelits, soft tissue radiation injuries and

>osteoradionecrosis) as well as mundane indications line preservation

>of skin flap/grafts and diabetic ulcers.

>

>Mhbot (1.3 and 1.5) does work in all of the above.

>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>

> Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

> > > >

> > > >The number of clinical trials (including the recent study out of

> > India) are

> > > evidence enough.

> > > >

> > > >If you want to g

> > >

> >

> >**************

> >New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

> >Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out

> >(<<http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>http://local.m

>

apquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew000\

00002)

>

> >

October 11, 2008

If this is the " Recent study " on CP with mhbo... it is not recent.

There is a specific reason that my good friend Pierre Marois refers

his kids to get medicinal HBOT at 1.5 ATA 100% O2 verses 1.75 100% O2

or 1.3 ATA RA.

you don't know what you are talking about and are going to hurt people.

At 06:50 PM 10/9/2008, you wrote:

>The other problem with his last post is using mhbot with ambient air

>as a control group. This is not a true control group. Also, many of

>the recent studies, most recently out of India, show no significant

>difference in results between 1.3 with air, and 1.5 and 1.75 with 100% 02.

>I know this study was done on CP patients, but the results hold true

>with many other conditions, such as those listed by Wayne.

>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>

> Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

> > > >

> > > >The number of clinical trials (including the recent study out of

> > India) are

> > > evidence enough.

> > > >

> > > >If you want to g

> > >

> >

> >**************

> >New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

> >Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out

> >(<<http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>http://local.m

>

apquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew000\

00002)

>

> >

October 11, 2008

Look it up, Ed. I gave you the info to find it. Would you like to see the

whole study? Maybe you should have attended the symposium.

I am not selling chambers!

Oh, and the McGill study was flawed as it didn't use a true control group, which

is why there is a lawsuit regarding the study.

Lastly, Ed, I have seen many patients, with my own eyes that have been treated

at 1.3, and they ALL benefitted greatly. I don't need a pile of studies to tell

me something works when I see it with my own eyes.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

> > > >

> > > >The number of clinical trials (including the recent study out of

> > India) are

> > > evidence enough.

> > > >

> > > >If you want to g

> > >

> >

> >**************

> >New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

> >Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out

> >(<<http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>http://local.m

>

apquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew000\

00002)

>

> >

October 11, 2008

That is funny Ed. Then why is it that the results were not publicized until

July?

You are obviously biased for reasons other than helping people. I hope you

sleep good at night knowing that people are not getting treatments because of

what you post.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Re: [ ] Wayne, please respond.

> > > >

> > > >The number of clinical trials (including the recent study out of

> > India) are

> > > evidence enough.

> > > >

> > > >If you want to g

> > >

> >

> >**************

> >New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.

> >Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out

> >(<<http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>http://local.m

>

apquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew000\

00002)

>

> >

Sign In

Re: Wayne, please respond.

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity