Guest guest Posted January 28, 1999 Report Share Posted January 28, 1999 Sebastiana How can we (purchase) get a copy of this video?? thanks Sue Sebastiana wrote: > From: Sebastiana <pienaar@...> > > Debbie, > > I posted this a few days ago, but thought I'd post it again for your > 1st > question And yes, she has made a video on this. Noted below. > > Sebastiana > > > > >This is a woman from the AVN list who responded fantastically to my > >question, " Do vaccines protect against a disease at all? " . > > > >From: Bronwyn Hancock <bhancock@...> > > > >Well, the short answer is no they don't, at all. > > > >The longer and more scientific way to answer the question is to say > that > >there is no scientific evidence that they are at all effective, from > a > >statistical or immunological point of view. In fact there is evidence > that > >they are counterproductive, in relation to the very diseases they are > > >supposed to be protecting against. I will address these points of > view in > >turn, and within each one address the evidence for their > ineffectiveness > >first, then for their counterproductivity... > > > >Statistical evidence indicating ineffectiveness: > >Looking at it from a statistical point of view, the statements we > keep > >getting that cases/deaths declined since the introduction of vaccines > are > >obviously meaningless, because they were already declining, in fact > they > >had already dropped by 90% this century by the time the vaccines were > > >introduced, as I think everyone reading this would know. > > > >The only " evidence " that is ever provided to the public for their > so-called > >effectiveness (and even then not often!) is that after the > introduction of > >vaccines there was sometimes an actual acceleration in the decline in > the > >number of REPORTED cases of the disease. However the facts that > > > >1) this accelerated decline in reported cases, which should be > " repeatable " > >to be considered meaningful in science, was not consistent around the > world > >wherever the vaccine was introduced, > > > >2) there was no corresponding acceleration in the decline in death > rates, > > > >3) the diagnostic guidelines given to doctors were supplemented with > " No > >history of vaccination " , when the vaccine was introduced, > > > >4) doctors, who base their diagnosis on symptoms, can be misled by > the > >distortion of the symptoms caused by the damage of the immune system > by > >vaccines, e.g. not getting a rash with measles, and consequently can > be > >less likely to correctly identify the virus or bacteria that is > present in > >such individuals, > > > >5) it is well documented that doctors under-report cases in > vaccinated > >individuals, > > > >6) in outbreaks of diseases, figures often indicate anyway that the > >percentage of cases vaccinated are as high, sometimes even higher > than the > >uptake levels in the community, (e.g. 87% of cases in whooping cough > in SA > >from 1990 to 1996 were fully vaccinated, according to questionnaires > to > >parents, outbreaks in the U.S. where 95% up to even 100% cases fully > >vaccinated), and > > > >7) sometimes the vaccination programs were implemented at peak times > of the > >natural disease cycles (possibly deliberately on some occasions), > resulting > >in unearnt credit being given to the vaccine for the inevitable wane > phase > >of the cycle, > >all tend to undermine the significance of this so-called evidence. > > > >If you get into studying individual articles in medical journals, > many of > >course claim effectiveness, but there are various unscientific > methods > >researchers use to draw such a conclusion, other than those already > covered > >above, such as > > > >1) using toxic injections as " placebos " for their control groups > (even on > >babies who don't even need placebos!), > > > >2) having misleadingly strict definitions of " vaccinated " (e.g. > defined as > >meaning vaccinated only recently), > > > >3) looking back in the past at incidences of a disease in the > vaccinated vs > >not vaccinated against that particular disease ignoring the fact that > those > >not vaccinated would usually have not been vaccinated for a reason, > e.g. > > > >a) already being immune-suppressed (quite possibly by another type of > > >vaccine!), or > > > > low socio-economic status, yet these people also just happen to > have > >less healthy lifestyles, particularly poorer nutrition. > > > >You may have heard that we are STILL, after many decades, waiting for > a > >true double-blind controlled study, but they will not do it, and > amazingly > >justify this by saying that to do it they would have to deny the > vaccine to > >the control group, which is supposedly too risky for those people! > Hence > >they are giving us a circular argument! > > > >Statistical evidence indicating counterproductivity: > >Further, there is statistical evidence that they are actually > >counterproductive: > > > >1) Outbreaks often occur soon after the vaccination programs > > > >2) I am told (but I haven't been able/got around to confirm(ing) yet) > that > >measles in Europe, having virtually died out, actually rose again > when they > >started the vaccination programs, > > > >3) Whooping cough in the U.S. has been rising for the first time ever > in > >recorded history since 1978 (or just after that to be precise), and > >consistently ever since. (The 1996 level was the highest since 1967.) > 1978 > >was when vaccination was mandated for school entry in the U.S. > > > >4) The age distribution for the childhood diseases (i.e. whooping > cough, > >measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox) has altered in highly > vaccinated > >countries such that the highest incidence is no longer at the > desirable age > >of childhood, but in the more vulnerable infanthood. The reasons for > this > >appear to be: > > > >a) the vaccines increases the susceptibility to the diseases, and > > > > (well documented) the vaccines that the mother had herself as a > baby > >weaken the transplacentally transmitted immunity that she is supposed > to > >pass onto the infant to provide temporary protection. > > > >Adolescences are also increasingly contracting these childhood > diseases, > >due most likely to > > > >a) the harm done to the immune system such that the old " rule " that > you > >only contract each of these illnesses once and, having fully > recovered, > >then have full immunity, does not apply now as much as it should, and > > > > > the likelihood (Dr Scheibner's well considered opinion based on > her > >study of almost 100000 pages of research on vaccinations) that the > immune > >system development is retarded by the vaccines, so that by that late > age > >it's still only up to childhood stage. > > > >5) Due to the damage to the immune system, ONLY the vaccinated are > >contracting the atypical forms of the diseases, which are more > serious than > >the typical forms, e.g. the rash in atypical measles moves in the > wrong > >direction, heading straight for the vital organs instead of away from > them, > >resulting in those serious cases of pneumonia, meningitis, etc. > Ironically > >the establishment uses these serious cases to frighten parents into > >vaccinating! > > > > > >Immunological evidence indicating ineffectiveness: > >Looking at it from an immunological point of view, the only > " evidence " that > >is ever provided for their so-called effectiveness is that the > vaccination > >succeeds in stimulating the immune system to produce antibodies. In > fact > >the degree of success in doing this is the way that the effectiveness > is > >often measured. However a false assumption is being made that the IgG > > >antibodies produced will bring immunity. > > > >In reality the immune system is far more complex than this. It has > actually > >been established that there are very many processes that the body > needs to > >go through in order to develop immunity. One example, which is > probably the > >best of these understood (immunologically speaking), is that, at the > >minimum, the activation of the secretory antibody IgA needs to occur, > which > >has an important role in the whole process. This, and many other > processes > >that occur in the outer levels of defence, are BYPASSED by > injections*. > > > >Dr Baratosy has drawn a good analogy, which is that vaccination > is a > >bit like trying to get a car to move just by pressing on the > accelerator > >without putting it in gear. It makes lots of noise but does not move > a > >single inch. So, as Dr Archie Kalokerinos says, you can have tons of > >antibodies and still get the disease, even die from the disease. > >He also goes further to say that you can actually have no antibodies > and > >yet still not contract the disease when exposed. In fact most of the > time > >we are exposed to a foreign invader, it does not even reach anywhere > near > >the deep level to which we are injecting it with vaccines - we deal > with it > >easily in the outer levels and might even develop immunity. > > > >The polio vaccine is not an injection, but you still cannot > artificially > >induce immunity whenever you want to, as the process depends on > various > >dynamics which depend on the state of the body. Indeed many people > actually > >contract polio from the vaccine, which also by the way contains a > different > >form from the relatively harmless wild form, and the dose is not > >necessarily small. Further, there are still very importantly all the > toxic, > >sensitising substances being swallowed with it. Of course we won't > suffer > >with polio anyway if we don't damage our immune system by interfering > with > >it via other vaccines, tonsillectomies, antibiotics, or any other > stupid > >idea that the medical establishment cares to dream up. Records > indicate it > >was not a problem in the past before they started all this > interference a > >century ago with the smallpox vaccine. > > > >Immunological evidence indicating counterproductivity: > >Further, there is immunological evidence that vaccines are actually > >counterproductive. This evidence is the fact that they have a > documented > >sensitising effect. Interestingly, immunologists themselves are said > to > >feel uncomfortable about the fact that vaccine injections can only > >stimulate a significant IgG antibody response if they include toxic > >sensitising substances, referred to as " adjuvants " , in the concoction > > >( " Dirty Secrets " , New Scientist, Nov 1996). > > > >Sensitisation is really the OPPOSITE of immunisation. Immunisation is > > >PROphylaxis, which means prevention. Sensitisation is another word > for > >ANAphylaxis (to various degrees) which indicates susceptibility is in > fact > >increased, and with the harm done to the immune system it " panics " > when we > >encounter harmless things (hence allergies, asthma, etc). > > > >This panic attack is a stress response that does not, I believe, > result in > >any positive resolution, because the immune system is confused and > >handicapped. (I will add here that Ian Sinclair, who is a natural > >hygienist, does not accept this, as he believes that it is a > positive, > >cleansing process.) > > > >Similarly, vaccination leads to the development of autoimmune > diseases > >because of this confusion, as a defect appears to occur in the immune > > >system's ability to tell the " good guys " from the " bad guys " , so that > the > >person's own cells are attacked. > > > > > >Apart from statistics and immunology, we could also look at it from > other > >points of view such as: > > > >a) the fact that the vaccination idea falsely assumes that germs are > the > >cause of disease, instead of infiltrating the system and flourishing > as a > >result of it, so it misses the mark. Worse, vaccination is > >counterproductive because it introduces toxic substances, which ARE > the > >cause of disease (I went more into that in earlier emails), and > > > > Mother Nature's rule that whenever we do anything unnatural it > will only > >harm us to some extent, not help us, as it will not fit in with the > design > >of the body, which is much more finely tuned than is appreciated by > most. > > > >Rather than specific research findings in themselves, one would > describe > >these statements as very credible theories which provide a broad > >explanation for the many detailed specific statistical and > immunological > >observations that have been made and documented in medical research. > > > > > >Does that answer your question? > > > > > >Since I've spent all this time writing this, I think I must deserve > the > >opportunity for a free plug. Most of the above is covered in the > video I > >made called " Vaccination - The Hidden Truth " . The video doesn't go > into as > >much detail as I do above, but covers the whole subject of > vaccination, > >i.e. the ineffectiveness followed by the ingredients, the mechanism, > the > >real effects, the harmlessness/benefits of childhood diseases (in > >unvaccinated well-nourished children!), why vaccination continues, > legal > >rights, countering vaccine damage, and the true key to immunity, in > logical > >sequence. > > > >We are finding that it is effectively communicating and explaining > the > >reality to those who are totally new to it (including many previously > very > >strident pro-vaccinators). It derives its power particularly from the > fact > >that the truth is coming out of the mouths of 5 medical doctors, plus > Dr > >Viera Scheibner presenting multiple medical journal articles, and > other > >important and eloquent people including Greg Beattie (he won't like > this > >because he goes all funny when I complement him, don't you Greg?) and > > >friend (a father), Ian Sinclair, a dog breeder, Isaac Golden, Leanne > >Hawkins, and a practitioner who effectively uses the LISTEN system to > > >evaluate and counter vaccine damage. It includes very revealing > stories of > >personal experiences as well as research findings. > > > >Whilst I now basically rely on video sales for my survival I am quite > happy > >to lend copies of the video out just for the cost of postage, partly > >because I want to spread the truth as far and wide as possible and > partly > >because so many who've bought it are people who wouldn't have known > about > >it or wouldn't have decided it was worth buying before they were lent > it to > >watch by someone else. (It costs $39.95 to buy, including postage) > > > >Bronwyn > > > > > > > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 1999 Report Share Posted January 28, 1999 Sorry Sue, I didn't include the details but here they are. Don't forget, this woman is from Australia, so she is talking australian dollars, and the phone numbers would need the australian country codes in front of them. If you're worried about conversion rates or anything else, I would suggest you email her at: Bronwyn Hancock <bhancock@...> From Bronwyn: Australian dollars $39.95 You can buy it by virtually any method - you can send a cheque, money order, or credit card details (I take all other than Diners). Send it to Taycare Pty Ltd, 20 / 10 - 12 Ray St, Turramurra NSW 2074. If you want to pay by credit card and don't want to send it by email or snail mail, I can take the details over the phone or fax, in which case my phone/fax numbers are (02) 9144 6625 (ph), (02) 9440 3001 (fax) At 10:29 AM 1/28/99 -0500, you wrote: >From: sue <sue@...> > >Sebastiana > >How can we (purchase) get a copy of this video?? >thanks > >Sue > >Sebastiana wrote: > >> From: Sebastiana <pienaar@...> >> >> Debbie, >> >> I posted this a few days ago, but thought I'd post it again for your >> 1st >> question And yes, she has made a video on this. Noted below. >> >> Sebastiana >> >> > >> >This is a woman from the AVN list who responded fantastically to my >> >question, " Do vaccines protect against a disease at all? " . >> > >> >From: Bronwyn Hancock <bhancock@...> >> > >> >Well, the short answer is no they don't, at all. >> > >> >The longer and more scientific way to answer the question is to say >> that >> >there is no scientific evidence that they are at all effective, from >> a >> >statistical or immunological point of view. In fact there is evidence >> that >> >they are counterproductive, in relation to the very diseases they are >> >> >supposed to be protecting against. I will address these points of >> view in >> >turn, and within each one address the evidence for their >> ineffectiveness >> >first, then for their counterproductivity... >> > >> >Statistical evidence indicating ineffectiveness: >> >Looking at it from a statistical point of view, the statements we >> keep >> >getting that cases/deaths declined since the introduction of vaccines >> are >> >obviously meaningless, because they were already declining, in fact >> they >> >had already dropped by 90% this century by the time the vaccines were >> >> >introduced, as I think everyone reading this would know. >> > >> >The only " evidence " that is ever provided to the public for their >> so-called >> >effectiveness (and even then not often!) is that after the >> introduction of >> >vaccines there was sometimes an actual acceleration in the decline in >> the >> >number of REPORTED cases of the disease. However the facts that >> > >> >1) this accelerated decline in reported cases, which should be >> " repeatable " >> >to be considered meaningful in science, was not consistent around the >> world >> >wherever the vaccine was introduced, >> > >> >2) there was no corresponding acceleration in the decline in death >> rates, >> > >> >3) the diagnostic guidelines given to doctors were supplemented with >> " No >> >history of vaccination " , when the vaccine was introduced, >> > >> >4) doctors, who base their diagnosis on symptoms, can be misled by >> the >> >distortion of the symptoms caused by the damage of the immune system >> by >> >vaccines, e.g. not getting a rash with measles, and consequently can >> be >> >less likely to correctly identify the virus or bacteria that is >> present in >> >such individuals, >> > >> >5) it is well documented that doctors under-report cases in >> vaccinated >> >individuals, >> > >> >6) in outbreaks of diseases, figures often indicate anyway that the >> >percentage of cases vaccinated are as high, sometimes even higher >> than the >> >uptake levels in the community, (e.g. 87% of cases in whooping cough >> in SA >> >from 1990 to 1996 were fully vaccinated, according to questionnaires >> to >> >parents, outbreaks in the U.S. where 95% up to even 100% cases fully >> >vaccinated), and >> > >> >7) sometimes the vaccination programs were implemented at peak times >> of the >> >natural disease cycles (possibly deliberately on some occasions), >> resulting >> >in unearnt credit being given to the vaccine for the inevitable wane >> phase >> >of the cycle, >> >all tend to undermine the significance of this so-called evidence. >> > >> >If you get into studying individual articles in medical journals, >> many of >> >course claim effectiveness, but there are various unscientific >> methods >> >researchers use to draw such a conclusion, other than those already >> covered >> >above, such as >> > >> >1) using toxic injections as " placebos " for their control groups >> (even on >> >babies who don't even need placebos!), >> > >> >2) having misleadingly strict definitions of " vaccinated " (e.g. >> defined as >> >meaning vaccinated only recently), >> > >> >3) looking back in the past at incidences of a disease in the >> vaccinated vs >> >not vaccinated against that particular disease ignoring the fact that >> those >> >not vaccinated would usually have not been vaccinated for a reason, >> e.g. >> > >> >a) already being immune-suppressed (quite possibly by another type of >> >> >vaccine!), or >> > >> > low socio-economic status, yet these people also just happen to >> have >> >less healthy lifestyles, particularly poorer nutrition. >> > >> >You may have heard that we are STILL, after many decades, waiting for >> a >> >true double-blind controlled study, but they will not do it, and >> amazingly >> >justify this by saying that to do it they would have to deny the >> vaccine to >> >the control group, which is supposedly too risky for those people! >> Hence >> >they are giving us a circular argument! >> > >> >Statistical evidence indicating counterproductivity: >> >Further, there is statistical evidence that they are actually >> >counterproductive: >> > >> >1) Outbreaks often occur soon after the vaccination programs >> > >> >2) I am told (but I haven't been able/got around to confirm(ing) yet) >> that >> >measles in Europe, having virtually died out, actually rose again >> when they >> >started the vaccination programs, >> > >> >3) Whooping cough in the U.S. has been rising for the first time ever >> in >> >recorded history since 1978 (or just after that to be precise), and >> >consistently ever since. (The 1996 level was the highest since 1967.) >> 1978 >> >was when vaccination was mandated for school entry in the U.S. >> > >> >4) The age distribution for the childhood diseases (i.e. whooping >> cough, >> >measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox) has altered in highly >> vaccinated >> >countries such that the highest incidence is no longer at the >> desirable age >> >of childhood, but in the more vulnerable infanthood. The reasons for >> this >> >appear to be: >> > >> >a) the vaccines increases the susceptibility to the diseases, and >> > >> > (well documented) the vaccines that the mother had herself as a >> baby >> >weaken the transplacentally transmitted immunity that she is supposed >> to >> >pass onto the infant to provide temporary protection. >> > >> >Adolescences are also increasingly contracting these childhood >> diseases, >> >due most likely to >> > >> >a) the harm done to the immune system such that the old " rule " that >> you >> >only contract each of these illnesses once and, having fully >> recovered, >> >then have full immunity, does not apply now as much as it should, and >> >> > >> > the likelihood (Dr Scheibner's well considered opinion based on >> her >> >study of almost 100000 pages of research on vaccinations) that the >> immune >> >system development is retarded by the vaccines, so that by that late >> age >> >it's still only up to childhood stage. >> > >> >5) Due to the damage to the immune system, ONLY the vaccinated are >> >contracting the atypical forms of the diseases, which are more >> serious than >> >the typical forms, e.g. the rash in atypical measles moves in the >> wrong >> >direction, heading straight for the vital organs instead of away from >> them, >> >resulting in those serious cases of pneumonia, meningitis, etc. >> Ironically >> >the establishment uses these serious cases to frighten parents into >> >vaccinating! >> > >> > >> >Immunological evidence indicating ineffectiveness: >> >Looking at it from an immunological point of view, the only >> " evidence " that >> >is ever provided for their so-called effectiveness is that the >> vaccination >> >succeeds in stimulating the immune system to produce antibodies. In >> fact >> >the degree of success in doing this is the way that the effectiveness >> is >> >often measured. However a false assumption is being made that the IgG >> >> >antibodies produced will bring immunity. >> > >> >In reality the immune system is far more complex than this. It has >> actually >> >been established that there are very many processes that the body >> needs to >> >go through in order to develop immunity. One example, which is >> probably the >> >best of these understood (immunologically speaking), is that, at the >> >minimum, the activation of the secretory antibody IgA needs to occur, >> which >> >has an important role in the whole process. This, and many other >> processes >> >that occur in the outer levels of defence, are BYPASSED by >> injections*. >> > >> >Dr Baratosy has drawn a good analogy, which is that vaccination >> is a >> >bit like trying to get a car to move just by pressing on the >> accelerator >> >without putting it in gear. It makes lots of noise but does not move >> a >> >single inch. So, as Dr Archie Kalokerinos says, you can have tons of >> >antibodies and still get the disease, even die from the disease. >> >He also goes further to say that you can actually have no antibodies >> and >> >yet still not contract the disease when exposed. In fact most of the >> time >> >we are exposed to a foreign invader, it does not even reach anywhere >> near >> >the deep level to which we are injecting it with vaccines - we deal >> with it >> >easily in the outer levels and might even develop immunity. >> > >> >The polio vaccine is not an injection, but you still cannot >> artificially >> >induce immunity whenever you want to, as the process depends on >> various >> >dynamics which depend on the state of the body. Indeed many people >> actually >> >contract polio from the vaccine, which also by the way contains a >> different >> >form from the relatively harmless wild form, and the dose is not >> >necessarily small. Further, there are still very importantly all the >> toxic, >> >sensitising substances being swallowed with it. Of course we won't >> suffer >> >with polio anyway if we don't damage our immune system by interfering >> with >> >it via other vaccines, tonsillectomies, antibiotics, or any other >> stupid >> >idea that the medical establishment cares to dream up. Records >> indicate it >> >was not a problem in the past before they started all this >> interference a >> >century ago with the smallpox vaccine. >> > >> >Immunological evidence indicating counterproductivity: >> >Further, there is immunological evidence that vaccines are actually >> >counterproductive. This evidence is the fact that they have a >> documented >> >sensitising effect. Interestingly, immunologists themselves are said >> to >> >feel uncomfortable about the fact that vaccine injections can only >> >stimulate a significant IgG antibody response if they include toxic >> >sensitising substances, referred to as " adjuvants " , in the concoction >> >> >( " Dirty Secrets " , New Scientist, Nov 1996). >> > >> >Sensitisation is really the OPPOSITE of immunisation. Immunisation is >> >> >PROphylaxis, which means prevention. Sensitisation is another word >> for >> >ANAphylaxis (to various degrees) which indicates susceptibility is in >> fact >> >increased, and with the harm done to the immune system it " panics " >> when we >> >encounter harmless things (hence allergies, asthma, etc). >> > >> >This panic attack is a stress response that does not, I believe, >> result in >> >any positive resolution, because the immune system is confused and >> >handicapped. (I will add here that Ian Sinclair, who is a natural >> >hygienist, does not accept this, as he believes that it is a >> positive, >> >cleansing process.) >> > >> >Similarly, vaccination leads to the development of autoimmune >> diseases >> >because of this confusion, as a defect appears to occur in the immune >> >> >system's ability to tell the " good guys " from the " bad guys " , so that >> the >> >person's own cells are attacked. >> > >> > >> >Apart from statistics and immunology, we could also look at it from >> other >> >points of view such as: >> > >> >a) the fact that the vaccination idea falsely assumes that germs are >> the >> >cause of disease, instead of infiltrating the system and flourishing >> as a >> >result of it, so it misses the mark. Worse, vaccination is >> >counterproductive because it introduces toxic substances, which ARE >> the >> >cause of disease (I went more into that in earlier emails), and >> > >> > Mother Nature's rule that whenever we do anything unnatural it >> will only >> >harm us to some extent, not help us, as it will not fit in with the >> design >> >of the body, which is much more finely tuned than is appreciated by >> most. >> > >> >Rather than specific research findings in themselves, one would >> describe >> >these statements as very credible theories which provide a broad >> >explanation for the many detailed specific statistical and >> immunological >> >observations that have been made and documented in medical research. >> > >> > >> >Does that answer your question? >> > >> > >> >Since I've spent all this time writing this, I think I must deserve >> the >> >opportunity for a free plug. Most of the above is covered in the >> video I >> >made called " Vaccination - The Hidden Truth " . The video doesn't go >> into as >> >much detail as I do above, but covers the whole subject of >> vaccination, >> >i.e. the ineffectiveness followed by the ingredients, the mechanism, >> the >> >real effects, the harmlessness/benefits of childhood diseases (in >> >unvaccinated well-nourished children!), why vaccination continues, >> legal >> >rights, countering vaccine damage, and the true key to immunity, in >> logical >> >sequence. >> > >> >We are finding that it is effectively communicating and explaining >> the >> >reality to those who are totally new to it (including many previously >> very >> >strident pro-vaccinators). It derives its power particularly from the >> fact >> >that the truth is coming out of the mouths of 5 medical doctors, plus >> Dr >> >Viera Scheibner presenting multiple medical journal articles, and >> other >> >important and eloquent people including Greg Beattie (he won't like >> this >> >because he goes all funny when I complement him, don't you Greg?) and >> >> >friend (a father), Ian Sinclair, a dog breeder, Isaac Golden, Leanne >> >Hawkins, and a practitioner who effectively uses the LISTEN system to >> >> >evaluate and counter vaccine damage. It includes very revealing >> stories of >> >personal experiences as well as research findings. >> > >> >Whilst I now basically rely on video sales for my survival I am quite >> happy >> >to lend copies of the video out just for the cost of postage, partly >> >because I want to spread the truth as far and wide as possible and >> partly >> >because so many who've bought it are people who wouldn't have known >> about >> >it or wouldn't have decided it was worth buying before they were lent >> it to >> >watch by someone else. (It costs $39.95 to buy, including postage) >> > >> >Bronwyn >> > >> > >> > >> >> - >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.