Guest guest Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 It is rarely that I allow things that look like spam on this group, I don't want you to be bothered by it. I have allowed Sammy's post which mentions his book. The post covers a lot of other ground. Sammy was good enough to send me a copy of his book, which I haven't fully read and appreciated. I did spend some time delving into it on the train to Bristol a week or so ago. Whilst some of the thinking is different and radical, there is enough to prompt deeper thinking, especially for the regime of intermittent hormone manipulation. I read this as the concept of raising testosterone (called rapid androgen stimulus) after stopping the hormone manipulation treatment reporting a reduction in the minimum (nadir) PSA reached compared with the normal treatment. When I catch up after being away I'll give the book more time,( I've just been to Maureen's aunt's 90th birthday with my 96 year old mother in law, we called in to see my 90 year old mum and my 94 year old dad). I tend to have an open but cautious mind on these things. We have to watch square world thinking, but we like absolute proof that the world is round. I am also of the opinion that PCa is not one disease, it comes in many forms and of different levels of agression. So it might be that Sammy's way works with some types of PCa, but not all. What we say on this group is that no-one can say this is the way you should go, but we can say this worked for me. This seems to have worked for Sammy, so as the other rule is "be kind", we are not going to get into slinging mud over the list messages. Questions are OK in a constructive thoughtful way and I'm going to give this 3 days from now. We then need to get back to the mix of topics, rather than get deep into one subject. My best wishes to you all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 please unsubsribe me from this email/ thank you jfj5838@... Subject: Sammy's postTo: "Prostate Cancer Support e-group" <ProstateCancerSupport >Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 11:22 PM It is rarely that I allow things that look like spam on this group, I don't want you to be bothered by it. I have allowed Sammy's post which mentions his book. The post covers a lot of other ground. Sammy was good enough to send me a copy of his book, which I haven't fully read and appreciated. I did spend some time delving into it on the train to Bristol a week or so ago. Whilst some of the thinking is different and radical, there is enough to prompt deeper thinking, especially for the regime of intermittent hormone manipulation. I read this as the concept of raising testosterone (called rapid androgen stimulus) after stopping the hormone manipulation treatment reporting a reduction in the minimum (nadir) PSA reached compared with the normal treatment. When I catch up after being away I'll give the book more time,( I've just been to Maureen's aunt's 90th birthday with my 96 year old mother in law, we called in to see my 90 year old mum and my 94 year old dad). I tend to have an open but cautious mind on these things. We have to watch square world thinking, but we like absolute proof that the world is round. I am also of the opinion that PCa is not one disease, it comes in many forms and of different levels of agression. So it might be that Sammy's way works with some types of PCa, but not all. What we say on this group is that no-one can say this is the way you should go, but we can say this worked for me. This seems to have worked for Sammy, so as the other rule is "be kind", we are not going to get into slinging mud over the list messages. Questions are OK in a constructive thoughtful way and I'm going to give this 3 days from now. We then need to get back to the mix of topics, rather than get deep into one subject. My best wishes to you all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 Hello , I was of a mind not to mention the book at all, but since sending it I haven't heard from you, and my emails to your private address seem to have gone astray. Thank you for allowing it past Moderation, and giving it a general 'thumbs up' as a thought provoking book. I have always been willing to donate a free copy to local libraries, so no-one need complain of the book being too expensive! ** There is just one comment I'd like to make in-line below in the text. ** Thanks for your openness . Cheers, Sam. > > It is rarely that I allow things that look like spam on this group, I don't want you to be bothered by it. > > I have allowed Sammy's post which mentions his book. > > The post covers a lot of other ground. > > Sammy was good enough to send me a copy of his book, which I haven't fully read and appreciated. I did spend some time delving into it on the train to Bristol a week or so ago. > > Whilst some of the thinking is different and radical, there is enough to prompt deeper thinking, especially for the regime of intermittent hormone manipulation. I read this as the concept of raising testosterone (called rapid androgen stimulus) after stopping the hormone manipulation treatment reporting a reduction in the minimum (nadir) PSA reached compared with the normal treatment. > > When I catch up after being away I'll give the book more time,( I've just been to Maureen's aunt's 90th birthday with my 96 year old mother in law, we called in to see my 90 year old mum and my 94 year old dad). > > I tend to have an open but cautious mind on these things. We have to watch square world thinking, but we like absolute proof that the world is round. > > I am also of the opinion that PCa is not one disease, it comes in many forms and of different levels of agression. So it might be that Sammy's way works with some types of PCa, but not all. **1. After analysing all the relevant facts there is only one conclusion that can be made: The first material cause of prostate cancer is *fetal estrogen imprinting*. This is well documented and I have brought a lot of evidence to bear in the book. **2. Now the time at which estrogen imprints on the fetal prostate is all important. There is a crucial window of prostate growth between 5-10 weeks where the prostatic steroid receptor / estrogen receptor is susceptible to modification. [ It is very early days but some research shows it may be possible to identify these changes receptors.] **3. Maternal estrogen or estrogenic mimetics may be the culprits. In some cases excess estrogen may be due to drugs or drink. In other cases it may be due to a dietary deficiency, or lifestyle handicap. ** For reasons 2 & 3 above prostate cancer may have all the looks of a heterogenous disease, which it is in many ways. This means there may be more than one way to 'put the fire out'. I am an optimist. After 15 years I have a right to be, and I'd like to pass on some sense of hope to the small band of younger guys who are battling this disease with strong treatments that are in themselves life changeing. [ Sorry I can't speak for you older guys, I am only 63. ] Cheers, Sammy. > > What we say on this group is that no-one can say this is the way you should go, but we can say this worked for me. This seems to have worked for Sammy, so as the other rule is " be kind " , we are not going to get into slinging mud over the list messages. > > Questions are OK in a constructive thoughtful way and I'm going to give this 3 days from now. We then need to get back to the mix of topics, rather than get deep into one subject. > > My best wishes to you all > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2010 Report Share Posted February 7, 2010 sammy_bates wrote: > **1. After analysing all the relevant facts there is only one > conclusion that can be made: The first material cause of > prostate cancer is *fetal estrogen imprinting*. This is well > documented and I have brought a lot of evidence to bear in the > book. Sammy, I hadn't heard of this so I did some searches in Pubmed. All the evidence for it that I found came from studies of rodents, and many of them came from the same lab. Not one that I saw claimed that estrogen imprinting was the sole or even the primary cause of prostate cancer, only that very early exposure to environmental estrogens, followed by more exposure later, can promote the development of lesions later in the rodent's life. Even if we assume that the rodent studies are directly applicable to humans, finding _a_ cause of PCa doesn't necessarily tell us it's the only, or even the primary cause of PCa. We have pretty good evidence, I think, that falling off a roof can cause broken bones. But that doesn't mean that the majority of men with broken bones fell off a roof. Can you point me to the key studies that support your conclusion above? Thanks. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 Alan, First of all, yes, much basic research is done on lab rats and other animals. Morally and ethically it would be impossible to justify doing 'fetal estrogen exposure' experiments on humans ! I think you will agree there. You may have come across Gail Prin's work which is comprehensive, but there are also other commentators. Perhaps change the search term to reflect the progression in conceptualization from basic study of a phenomenon to processes based on that phenomenon. For example I quote here PubMed ID: 18758502 by Chen et al concerning the role of ERalpha in the development of the male prostate. Sometimes you have to search deeply to find the human connection, but it is there in nature. I found a Swedish study that discussed human perinatal characteristics in relation to PC mortality and was able to draw some inferences regarding 'background levels' of human fetal estrogen imprinting see PubMed 8760741 Ekbom et al. In the book I develop these ideas further, suggesting maternal alcohol use in the west is contributing to increased rates over the last century. Maternal alcohol may also be responsible for increased rates of breast cancer for the same reason. I also use comparative studies from other countries that do not exhibit as much maternal alcohol use to identify other sources of fetal estrogen imprinting. I found the comparison between breast and prostate cancer illuminating. I think will probably want to put a cap on the discussion soon, so if you have any comments perhaps you could reply to me personally georgia.sam (.at.) fitcare.org.uk Cheers, Sammy. > > > **1. After analysing all the relevant facts there is only one > > conclusion that can be made: The first material cause of > > prostate cancer is *fetal estrogen imprinting*. This is well > > documented and I have brought a lot of evidence to bear in the > > book. > > Sammy, > > I hadn't heard of this so I did some searches in Pubmed. All the > evidence for it that I found came from studies of rodents, and > many of them came from the same lab. Not one that I saw claimed > that estrogen imprinting was the sole or even the primary cause > of prostate cancer, only that very early exposure to > environmental estrogens, followed by more exposure later, can > promote the development of lesions later in the rodent's life. > > Even if we assume that the rodent studies are directly applicable > to humans, finding _a_ cause of PCa doesn't necessarily tell us > it's the only, or even the primary cause of PCa. We have pretty > good evidence, I think, that falling off a roof can cause broken > bones. But that doesn't mean that the majority of men with > broken bones fell off a roof. > > Can you point me to the key studies that support your conclusion > above? > > Thanks. > > Alan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 Sammy, PubMed ID: 18758502 isn't by Chen or about prostate cancer. I did a search on (Chen ERalpha prostate cancer) and got 13 hits, including about 8 different Chens (it's a common name in China.) Can you check again for the Pubmed ID? I looked at 8760741 and it did indeed provide evidence that a statistically significant (though not all) prostate cancer patients in the retrospective study were born under conditions that might indicate higher than normal maternal hormone levels. I have a little background in biochemistry and molecular biology. I have read carefully, for example, recent editions of both the _Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry_ and Alberts, et. al.'s _Molecular Biology of the Cell_, cover to cover (about 2,500 pages in toto.) But I have no background in medicine and only a couple of courses (a long time ago) in statistics. I looked at the full text of that article, but I'm not qualified to evaluate either the conditions that it reports or the statistical analysis, much less whether the conclusions support the view that " The first material cause of prostate cancer is *fetal estrogen imprinting*. " I looked at the National Cancer Institute's statement about causes of prostate cancer. See: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/prostate/healthprofessional/al\ lpages#Section_17 These statements are written and reviewed by a board containing some of the world's leading cancer researchers. They talk about hormones as risk factors and consider there to be significant evidence for them. There are also some hereditary risk factors from fathers, and some dietary risk factors. These scientists are careful to talk about " risk factors " rather than " causes " . They know that there are many cases of prostate cancer where the known risk factors do not appear to be present. So I want to caution you about sounding too authoritative about the causes of prostate cancer. The top scientists in the world, people who have PhDs and MDs, have studied cancer all their lives, have observed and treated thousands of cancer patients, have worked in some of the world's most advanced laboratories, and who have a staff of about six people supporting the board who do nothing but scan all of the world's cancer literature every month, as it is published, are pretty cautious about drawing conclusions. I don't think they would endorse your strong statement about " the first material cause " . At any rate, they didn't do so in the article I cited. They suggested that " the degree of cumulative exposure of the prostate to androgens is related to an increased risk... " I don't know your background. Perhaps you are a doctor. Perhaps you have a PhD in molecular biology. If so, please tell me. If not, I'd like you to consider whether you are the right guy to be making strong and controversial statements about the cause of prostate cancer. Regards, -- Alan Meyer ameyer2@... Re: Sammy's post > > > Alan, > > First of all, yes, much basic research is done on lab rats and other animals. > Morally and ethically it would be impossible to justify doing 'fetal estrogen > exposure' experiments on humans ! I think you will agree there. > > You may have come across Gail Prin's work which is comprehensive, but there are > also other commentators. Perhaps change the search term to reflect the > progression in conceptualization from basic study of a phenomenon to processes > based on that phenomenon. For example I quote here PubMed ID: 18758502 by Chen > et al concerning the role of ERalpha in the development of the male prostate. > > Sometimes you have to search deeply to find the human connection, but it is > there in nature. I found a Swedish study that discussed human perinatal > characteristics in relation to PC mortality and was able to draw some inferences > regarding 'background levels' of human fetal estrogen imprinting see PubMed > 8760741 Ekbom et al. > > In the book I develop these ideas further, suggesting maternal alcohol use in > the west is contributing to increased rates over the last century. Maternal > alcohol may also be responsible for increased rates of breast cancer for the > same reason. I also use comparative studies from other countries that do not > exhibit as much maternal alcohol use to identify other sources of fetal estrogen > imprinting. I found the comparison between breast and prostate cancer > illuminating. > > I think will probably want to put a cap on the discussion soon, so if you > have any comments perhaps you could reply to me personally georgia.sam (.at.) > fitcare.org.uk > > Cheers, > > Sammy. > > > > > > > > > **1. After analysing all the relevant facts there is only one > > > conclusion that can be made: The first material cause of > > > prostate cancer is *fetal estrogen imprinting*. This is well > > > documented and I have brought a lot of evidence to bear in the > > > book. > > > > Sammy, > > > > I hadn't heard of this so I did some searches in Pubmed. All the > > evidence for it that I found came from studies of rodents, and > > many of them came from the same lab. Not one that I saw claimed > > that estrogen imprinting was the sole or even the primary cause > > of prostate cancer, only that very early exposure to > > environmental estrogens, followed by more exposure later, can > > promote the development of lesions later in the rodent's life. > > > > Even if we assume that the rodent studies are directly applicable > > to humans, finding _a_ cause of PCa doesn't necessarily tell us > > it's the only, or even the primary cause of PCa. We have pretty > > good evidence, I think, that falling off a roof can cause broken > > bones. But that doesn't mean that the majority of men with > > broken bones fell off a roof. > > > > Can you point me to the key studies that support your conclusion > > above? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 Oops. I intended for my last reply to Sammy to be private, but didn't pay careful attention to the addressing. Yahoo Mail allows one to reply to " sender " or to " all " , but in this case, they are the same since the message comes to me with the newsgroup address as the originator, not the original poster. My apologies to Sammy and to all. -- Alan Meyer ameyer2@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 Alan, I have not the reading and study you and others have done so forgive me if my stuff just is just stuff. Although there is no scientific evidence "hard science". I recently read Time Magazines article on switches that occur in genes being activated during times of stress and etc. in populations and individuals.So possible since stress can have a powerful effect upon us invetro(sp), immune system and etc. Not hard evidence and possible maybe even probable even though not a 1 to 1. An aside (ok not too related just interesting): I have even met people overseas wether I agree with it or not that have had placentas implanted under their skin that look 10 to 20 years younger than their age and seem desease free. To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 4:40:15 PMSubject: Re: Re: Sammy's post Oops.I intended for my last reply to Sammy to be private, butdidn't pay careful attention to the addressing. Yahoo Mailallows one to reply to "sender" or to "all", but in thiscase, they are the same since the message comes to me withthe newsgroup address as the originator, not the originalposter.My apologies to Sammy and to all.--Alan Meyerameyer2yahoo (DOT) com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 Mea culpa ! Sorry I mistranscribed the number from the references in my book. Chen is for sure a common Chinese name - I merely mentioned the first author as part of the citation. Anyhow, it should read 18755802 [ I have just copied and pasted the number into PubMed to make absolutely sure it is the right reference.] Alan, you raise a number of objections to what I am saying. They kind of remind me of all the reasons why prostate cancer science is in such a mess. I don't really care what the " experts " have to say. I have done my homework and I haven't pleaded to a higher authority (i.e. tried to pull rank) instead of searching out the facts and presenting a well documented argument. My bottom line is this, a statement from the American College of Physicians in 2008: " Little quality research exists for prostate cancer. Despite it being the most common male cancer, its cause is still unknown. " J. Wilt, MD, MPH; Roderick Mac, MS; Indulis Rutks, BA; Tatyana A. Shamliyan, MD, MS; Brent C. , PhD; and L. Kane, MD; Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness and Harms of Treatments for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer; 18 March 2008 Volume 148 Issue 6; ls of Internal Medicin; PubMed:18252677 http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/short/148/6/435 http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200803180-00209v1 I am giving you the full citation here just to make sure the message comes across load and clear. Let's see now .. sixty or is it seventy years since Huggins discovered that castration will palliate prostate cancer symptoms and we haven't move on from developing forms of chemical castration that still .. palliate. What is more, they are treatments that still inevitably lead to castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Consider all the fantastic scientific and technological achievements of the 20th century and then compare all that with prostate cancer sci ence and medicine. It does not compute. It is as though prostate cancer science and medicine got stuck in a time warp somewhere around 1940 when scientists (and a gullible public) believed they could go one better than nature. What was reasonable then is entirely unreasonable now. Castration is unacceptable to human beings: it is not to be done as a routine medical procedure on a chronic basis. Anyone who suggests that castration of any form on that basis is not living in the 21st century. EWe need to move on, hence the book. Anyhow, to answer your question about my background - it is in social work and teaching. I have a bachelor's degree in social science and a bachelor's degree in physics plus various other bits and pieces I have picked up on the way in the career of an eclectic. I consider that a good enough background to challenge the conventional wisdoms about prostate cancer science and medicine, and present an argument that a normal human being can understand. [ If they take the trouble to read it.] Cheers, Sam. Georgia Sam had a bloody nose Poppa fatty wouldn't give him no clothes [ A free book to anyone who can provide the next two lines ] > > > > > > > **1. After analysing all the relevant facts there is only one > > > > conclusion that can be made: The first material cause of > > > > prostate cancer is *fetal estrogen imprinting*. This is well > > > > documented and I have brought a lot of evidence to bear in the > > > > book. > > > > > > Sammy, > > > > > > I hadn't heard of this so I did some searches in Pubmed. All the > > > evidence for it that I found came from studies of rodents, and > > > many of them came from the same lab. Not one that I saw claimed > > > that estrogen imprinting was the sole or even the primary cause > > > of prostate cancer, only that very early exposure to > > > environmental estrogens, followed by more exposure later, can > > > promote the development of lesions later in the rodent's life. > > > > > > Even if we assume that the rodent studies are directly applicable > > > to humans, finding _a_ cause of PCa doesn't necessarily tell us > > > it's the only, or even the primary cause of PCa. We have pretty > > > good evidence, I think, that falling off a roof can cause broken > > > bones. But that doesn't mean that the majority of men with > > > broken bones fell off a roof. > > > > > > Can you point me to the key studies that support your conclusion > > > above? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Alan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 No problemo. I have had worse roastings ! Replied without thinking on list and also apologise. Sam. > > Oops. > > I intended for my last reply to Sammy to be private, but > didn't pay careful attention to the addressing. Yahoo Mail > allows one to reply to " sender " or to " all " , but in this > case, they are the same since the message comes to me with > the newsgroup address as the originator, not the original > poster. > > My apologies to Sammy and to all. > > -- > Alan Meyer > ameyer2@... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 I am a little confused. You said, " Little quality research exists for prostate cancer. Despite it being the most common male cancer, its cause is still unknown. " but the quote at the link is “The comparative effectiveness of localized prostate cancer treatments is largely unknown.” They also say, “Assessment of the comparative effectiveness and harms of localized prostate cancer treatments is difficult because of limitations in the evidence.” The purpose of this review was to see what research has been done that would help doctors to say which treatment was best for patient. We all know that this information is not available. Maybe I missed it but in which section did you find the quote? What you said has a very different meaning than what they were talking about in the article. Personally I agree with your statement, we need more research, but could not find the quote at the link and I am far from an expert on all the research that has been done and I do believe that there has been quality research just not enough. There is just too much that we do not know. Kathy From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of sammy_bates Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:21 PM To: ProstateCancerSupport Subject: Re: Sammy's post Mea culpa ! Sorry I mistranscribed the number from the references in my book. Chen is for sure a common Chinese name - I merely mentioned the first author as part of the citation. Anyhow, it should read 18755802 [ I have just copied and pasted the number into PubMed to make absolutely sure it is the right reference.] Alan, you raise a number of objections to what I am saying. They kind of remind me of all the reasons why prostate cancer science is in such a mess. I don't really care what the " experts " have to say. I have done my homework and I haven't pleaded to a higher authority (i.e. tried to pull rank) instead of searching out the facts and presenting a well documented argument. My bottom line is this, a statement from the American College of Physicians in 2008: " Little quality research exists for prostate cancer. Despite it being the most common male cancer, its cause is still unknown. " J. Wilt, MD, MPH; Roderick Mac, MS; Indulis Rutks, BA; Tatyana A. Shamliyan, MD, MS; Brent C. , PhD; and L. Kane, MD; Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness and Harms of Treatments for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer; 18 March 2008 Volume 148 Issue 6; ls of Internal Medicin; PubMed:18252677 http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/short/148/6/435 http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200803180-00209v1 I am giving you the full citation here just to make sure the message comes across load and clear. Let's see now .. sixty or is it seventy years since Huggins discovered that castration will palliate prostate cancer symptoms and we haven't move on from developing forms of chemical castration that still .. palliate. What is more, they are treatments that still inevitably lead to castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Consider all the fantastic scientific and technological achievements of the 20th century and then compare all that with prostate cancer sci ence and medicine. It does not compute. It is as though prostate cancer science and medicine got stuck in a time warp somewhere around 1940 when scientists (and a gullible public) believed they could go one better than nature. What was reasonable then is entirely unreasonable now. Castration is unacceptable to human beings: it is not to be done as a routine medical procedure on a chronic basis. Anyone who suggests that castration of any form on that basis is not living in the 21st century. EWe need to move on, hence the book. Anyhow, to answer your question about my background - it is in social work and teaching. I have a bachelor's degree in social science and a bachelor's degree in physics plus various other bits and pieces I have picked up on the way in the career of an eclectic. I consider that a good enough background to challenge the conventional wisdoms about prostate cancer science and medicine, and present an argument that a normal human being can understand. [ If they take the trouble to read it.] Cheers, Sam. Georgia Sam had a bloody nose Poppa fatty wouldn't give him no clothes [ A free book to anyone who can provide the next two lines ] > > > > > > > **1. After analysing all the relevant facts there is only one > > > > conclusion that can be made: The first material cause of > > > > prostate cancer is *fetal estrogen imprinting*. This is well > > > > documented and I have brought a lot of evidence to bear in the > > > > book. > > > > > > Sammy, > > > > > > I hadn't heard of this so I did some searches in Pubmed. All the > > > evidence for it that I found came from studies of rodents, and > > > many of them came from the same lab. Not one that I saw claimed > > > that estrogen imprinting was the sole or even the primary cause > > > of prostate cancer, only that very early exposure to > > > environmental estrogens, followed by more exposure later, can > > > promote the development of lesions later in the rodent's life. > > > > > > Even if we assume that the rodent studies are directly applicable > > > to humans, finding _a_ cause of PCa doesn't necessarily tell us > > > it's the only, or even the primary cause of PCa. We have pretty > > > good evidence, I think, that falling off a roof can cause broken > > > bones. But that doesn't mean that the majority of men with > > > broken bones fell off a roof. > > > > > > Can you point me to the key studies that support your conclusion > > > above? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Alan > 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.