FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » diseases » hepatitis
Alan
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [7 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
epiphany
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:09 am    Post subject: Alan Reply with quote

Danger Danger Will Rogers Danger

http://www.newagedirectory.com/pro/edgar_cayce.htm

The times they are a changin'
Back to top
Waterspider
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:27 am    Post subject: Re: Alan Reply with quote

"epiphany" <epiphany@scourge.orb> wrote in
Quote:
Danger Danger Will Rogers Danger
http://www.newagedirectory.com/pro/edgar_cayce.htm
The times they are a changin'

Haven't studied much history, have you?
Back to top
Alan
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 1055

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:45 am    Post subject: Re: Alan Reply with quote

In article <11s6s02hgvikce6@corp.supernews.com>, waterspider@moonlight.net
(Waterspider) wrote:

Quote:

"epiphany" <epiphany@scourge.orb> wrote in
Danger Danger Will Rogers Danger
http://www.newagedirectory.com/pro/edgar_cayce.htm
The times they are a changin'

Haven't studied much history, have you?

What's more he hasn't checked out my web-site cos I have had Edgar Cayce linked
for ages :-)

Now if you want a *real* terror, here is one:

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

It only lasts 4.5 million years.



Firebird

Never trust anybody who is too sophisticated to own a rubber chicken.

http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/index.html

http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/
Back to top
Alan
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 1055

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Alan Reply with quote

In article <5pq6s1hao96eq2sai9s5jvov7t0qhq2olm@4ax.com>, epiphany@scourge.orb
(epiphany) wrote:

Quote:


Danger Danger Will Rogers Danger

http://www.newagedirectory.com/pro/edgar_cayce.htm

The times they are a changin'

They sure are:

http://mind-deprogramming.com/headshot/downloads/videos/Mr%20President.mov



Firebird

Never trust anybody who is too sophisticated to own a rubber chicken.

http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/index.html

http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/
Back to top
Alan
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 1055

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Alan Reply with quote

In article <5pq6s1hao96eq2sai9s5jvov7t0qhq2olm@4ax.com>, epiphany@scourge.orb
(epiphany) wrote:

Quote:
The times they are a changin'

And really, I don't think what Edgar Case had to say, made any allowance for
this:

Nuclear War against Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in
the final planning stages.

Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced
stage of readiness".

Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn,
the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in
the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington,
Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara,
requested Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and
logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets."
Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to
help prepare and monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).

In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli
Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:

All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the
deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The end of March date also
coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program.
Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at
least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas
supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military
action.

(James Petras, Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs, Global
Research, December 2005)

The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is
unclear, at this stage, as to the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned
aerial attacks.

"Shock and Awe"

The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command,
coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM)
at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska.

The actions announced by Israel would be carried out in close coordination with
the Pentagon. The command structure of the operation is centralized and
ultimately Washington will decide when to launch the military operation.

US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack on Iran would involve a
large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on
Iraq in March 2003:

American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981
Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the
opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of
operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from
the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from
al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect
nuclear sites would be targeted.

Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences
of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the
most crucial facilities ... or the United States could opt for a far more
comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related
targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to
counterattack against US forces in Iraq

(See Globalsecurity.org at
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

In November, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike
plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using
both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy".

Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared an
advanced state of readiness (See our analysis below)

While Asian press reports stated that the "fictitious enemy" in the Global
Lightening exercise was North Korea, the timing of the exercises, suggests that
they were conducted in anticipation of a planned attack on Iran.

Consensus for Nuclear War

No dissenting political voices have emerged from within the European Union.

There are ongoing consultations between Washington, Paris and Berlin. Contrary
to the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed at the diplomatic level by France and
Germany, Washington has been building "a consensus" both within the Atlantic
Alliance and the UN Security Council. This consensus pertains to the conduct of
a nuclear war, which could potentially affect a large part of the Middle East
Central Asian region.

Moreover, a number of frontline Arab states are now tacit partners in the US/
Israeli military project. A year ago in November 2004, Israel's top military
brass met at NATO headqaurters in Brtussels with their counterparts from six
members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia,
Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. A NATO-Israel protocol was signed. Following
these meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria
involving the US, Israel and Turkey. and in February 2005, Israel participated
in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab
countries.

The media in chorus has unequivocally pointed to Iran as a "threat to World
Peace".

The antiwar movement has swallowed the media lies. The fact that the US and
Israel are planning a Middle East nuclear holocaust is not part of the antiwar/
anti- globalization agenda.

The "surgical strikes" are presented to world public opinion as a means to
preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

We are told that this is not a war but a military peace-keeping operation, in
the form of aerial attacks directed against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Mini-nukes: "Safe for Civilians"

The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda,
largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which
contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.

The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive"
nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.

Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating
consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The
fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional
and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.

According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear
weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times
a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion
is underground.

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative"
nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace
rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield
use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of America's "war on
Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons:

Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as
a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea] Their logic is
that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a
full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not
consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield
nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would
make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By Elimination of
Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to
building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated,
in this regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are
harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’. Each of
these ‘mini-nukes’, nonetheless, constitutes – in terms of explosion and
potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped
on Hiroshima in 1945. Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate
that they were respectively of 21000 and 15000 tons (
http://www.warbirdforum.com/hiroshim.htm

In other words, the low yielding mini-nukes have an explosive capacity of one
third of a Hiroshima bomb.
The earth-penetrating capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly limited,
however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped
from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground
before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is
transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it
in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties.
Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will
simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal
gamma-radiation field over a large area.

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm


Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)

The new definition of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction between
conventional and nuclear weapons:

'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The implication of
this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being brought down from a special
category of being a last resort, or sort of the ultimate weapon, to being just
another tool in the toolbox,' said Kristensen. (Japan Economic News Wire, op
cit)

We are a dangerous crossroads: military planners believe their own propaganda.

The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear weapons are
"safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a weapon of last resort.
There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. In this context,
Senator Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush Administration for having developed
"a generation of more useable nuclear weapons."

The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of World Peace.

"Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation
which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

But nuclear holocausts are not front page news! In the words of Mordechai
Vanunu,

The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war
with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust.
But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate
cities, destroy entire peoples. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December
2005).

Space and Earth Attack Command Unit

A preemptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated
out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in
Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf,
the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey.

Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global
strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military
jargon, it is slated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the
missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile
Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "

In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran,
USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and
synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction."

To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional
Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.

JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in
accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in
2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only
against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia.

Since November, JFCCSGS is said to be in "an advance state of readiness"
following the conduct of relevant military exercises. The announcement was made
in early December by U.S. Strategic Command to the effect that the command unit
had achieved "an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the
globe using nuclear or conventional weapons." The exercises conducted in
November used "a fictional country believed to represent North Korea" (see David
Ruppe, 2 December 2005):

"The new unit [JFCCSGS] has 'met requirements necessary to declare an
initial operational capability' as of Nov. 18. A week before this announcement,
the unit finished a command-post exercise, dubbed Global Lightening, which was
linked with another exercise, called Vigilant Shield, conducted by the North
American Aerospace Defend Command, or NORAD, in charge of missile defense for
North America.

'After assuming several new missions in 2002, U.S. Strategic Command was
reorganized to create better cooperation and cross-functional awareness,' said
Navy Capt. James Graybeal, a chief spokesperson for STRATCOM. 'By May of this
year, the JFCCSGS has published a concept of operations and began to develop its
day-to-day operational requirements and integrated planning process.'

'The command's performance during Global Lightning demonstrated its
preparedness to execute its mission of proving integrated space and global
strike capabilities to deter and dissuade aggressors and when directed, defeat
adversaries through decisive joint global effects in support of STRATCOM,' he
added without elaborating about 'new missions' of the new command unit that has
around 250 personnel.

Nuclear specialists and governmental sources pointed out that one of its
main missions would be to implement the 2001 nuclear strategy that includes an
option of preemptive nuclear attacks on 'rogue states' with WMDs. (Japanese
Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005)

CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022

JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed
against Iran or North Korea.

The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN
(CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the
Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,'
(Ibid).

CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned
strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North
Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's
nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against
Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear
Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)

The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a
nuclear war with Iran.

The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of
Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN
8022.

CONPLAN is distinct from other military operations. it does not contemplate the
deployment of ground troops.

CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a
small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan
encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account
the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in
protracted operations.... The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the
perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.)
(William Arkin, Washington Post, May 2005)

The Role of Israel

Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional and nuclear
weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran. This stockpiling which is
financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken
delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including
some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical
nuclear bombs.

The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, can be
delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel
Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ) .

Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with
US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See
Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html

Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster
Bunker Bombs:

Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation
Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100
bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was
viewed by the US media as "a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."

The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28
(GBU-2Cool BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and
support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating
hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is
that the GBU-28 is among the World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in
the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths
through massive explosions.

The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft.

(See text of DSCA news release at
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2005/Israel_05-10_corrected.pdf

Extension of the War

Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of
ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These
attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf,
which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all
out war.

At present there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and
Palestine. The air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in
the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to
the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new
space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the
US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following last year's agreement
reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

More recently, Tehran has beefed up its air defenses through the acquisition of
Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. In October, with Moscow`s
collaboration, "a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1,
into orbit." (see Chris Floyd)

The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for Russian
launches in the coming months.

Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to give them
early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still be a pale echo of the
far more powerful Israeli and American space spies that can track the slightest
movement of a Tehran mullah’s beard. What’s more, late last month Russia signed
a $1 billion contract to sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy
guided missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports. This too will
be ready in the next few months. (op.cit.)

Ground War

While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could
lead through the process of escalation into a ground war.

Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces
inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and
Syria.

In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises as well as
deploy Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and
Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government:

Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli army
to carry out military exercises in the mountainous areas [in Turkey] that border
Iran.

[According to] ... a UAE newspaper ..., according to the agreement reached
by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz, and Turkish
officials, Israel is to carry out various military manoeuvres in the areas that
border Iran and Syria. [Punctuation as published here and throughout.] [Dan
Halutz] had gone to Turkey a few days earlier.

Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to stress:
The Israeli side made the request to carry out the manoeuvres because of the
difficulty of passage in the mountain terrains close to Iran's borders in
winter.

The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not traced] units
are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been scheduled yet. The units
are the most important of Israel's special military units and are charged with
fighting terrorism and carrying out guerrilla warfare.

Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the area
bordering Iran. The news [of the agreement] is released at a time when Turkish
officials are trying to evade the accusation of cooperating with America in
espionage operations against its neighbouring countries Syria and Iran. Since
last week the Arab press has been publishing various reports about Ankara's
readiness or, at least, agreement in principle to carry out negotiations about
its soil and air space being used for action against Iran.

(E'temad website, Tehran, in Persian 28 Dec 05, BBC Monitoring Services
Translation)

Concluding remarks

The implications are overwhelming.

The so-called international community has accepted the eventuality of a nuclear
holocaust.

Those who decide have swallowed their own war propaganda.

A political consensus has developed in Western Europe and North America
regarding the aerial attacks using tactical nuclear weapons, without considering
their devastating implications.

This profit driven military adventure ultimately threatens the future of
humanity.

What is needed in the months ahead is a major thrust, nationally and
internationally which breaks the conspiracy of silence, which acknowledges the
dangers, which brings this war project to the forefront of political debate and
media attentiion, at all levels, which confronts and requires political and
military leaders to take a firm stance against the US sponsored nuclear war.

Ultimately what is required are extensive international sanctions directed
against the United States of America and Israel.


Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The
Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of
Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on
Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the
Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on
Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.,

Alan

http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/identity.html
Back to top
test
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Alan Reply with quote

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:27:48 -0800, "Waterspider"
<waterspider@moonlight.net> wrote:

Quote:

"epiphany" <epiphany@scourge.orb> wrote in
Danger Danger Will Rogers Danger
http://www.newagedirectory.com/pro/edgar_cayce.htm
The times they are a changin'

Haven't studied much history, have you?


Get me a scribe do decipher bug language! duh!

http://ancienthistory.mrdonn.org/Tombs.html
Back to top
Alan
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 1055

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Alan Reply with quote

In article <9l28s1ttjm9qboe57u945lihg5vbj0oimv@4ax.com>, test@outthere.com
(test) wrote:

Quote:








On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:27:48 -0800, "Waterspider"
waterspider@moonlight.net> wrote:


"epiphany" <epiphany@scourge.orb> wrote in
Danger Danger Will Rogers Danger
http://www.newagedirectory.com/pro/edgar_cayce.htm
The times they are a changin'

Haven't studied much history, have you?


Get me a scribe do decipher bug language! duh!

http://ancienthistory.mrdonn.org/Tombs.html

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Alan

http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/enigma.html

http://veloceraptor.blogspot.com/
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [7 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:43 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » diseases » hepatitis
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Alan Barbour Turning American Medicine Upside Down kathleen lyme 0 Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:24 pm
No new posts Alan Don't Go Doug hepatitis 3 Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:11 am
No new posts ooopsy alan! epiphany hepatitis 1 Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:54 am
No new posts here ya go alan epiphany hepatitis 1 Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:50 am
No new posts Alan what do you think epiphany hepatitis 5 Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:03 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0212s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0018s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]