New supplement campaign, "Whole Body Research"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Leifer

Senior Member.
Their two youtube videos use catchy info-graphics and dire scare tactics to attract viewers to keep listening and watching in order for the ads to "get-to-the-point".
Basically, their videos are on the subject of, "our supplements are better".

(edit) These YouTube links are now dead/gone....

The company is known as "Whole Body Research", also found under the company "Keybiotics", with the founder's name as "Craig Cappetta". (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/craig-cappetta/80/7a3/824 )
There is not much info there, or anywhere.

Their Facebook page does have people asking, "


candida.jpg candida_2.jpg


No doubt there is a heavy ad campaign going on, as I've seen these vids twice in the last 24 hours, in the Youtube pre-video advertizements.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Leifer

Senior Member.
The second video, claims that "other supplements" use synthetic toxic methods to derive the necessary nutrients.
Ironically.....or perhaps more asinine...."Whole Body Research" has found a "way to tap into the healing compounds found naturally in plants and minerals".....and that modern science has not yet found a way to include all these essentials. (are they using something other than "modern science" to derive their mix ?)

Now at that point a thinking person might say...."so we should avoid supplements, and just eat rather raw fruit and veggies". But no....."Whole Body Research" has found a way to avoid all those trips to the market....all the slicing and dicing, all the mess left on cutting boards due to fresh produce.... :(.
They are appealing to the already intrenched nutrient supplement crowd.
 
Last edited:

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Actually the first video is 80% very good and compelling. It could be a great video stimulating people to eat healthier. I'm for sure stimulated. :)

But in the end they sell their supplement and tell you that you can keep eating unhealthy food. :-(

It's an almost-win .
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Actually the first video is 80% very good and compelling. It could be a great video stimulating people to eat healthier. I'm for sure stimulated. :)

But in the end they sell their supplement and tell you that you can keep eating unhealthy food. :-(

It's an almost-win .
I don't see how the first video is informative at all. Can you explain it ?
To claim that "Candida" is somehow an illustrative detriment to human life promoted by big food corp is rather deceptive ? Isn't it ? Why not say, "eat less sugars" ?
Why don't they say which strain of Candida ?
Why don't they say that Yeast is bad, period ?
Isn't this about eating better ?.....and not buying a pill to do so ?
They claim that buying a pill will allow you to eat anything you want.
Remember, this is about buying a product to eliminate an imbalance, rather than to adjust your diet to do the exact same thing.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
I don't see how the first video is informative at all. Can you explain it ?
To claim that "Candida" is somehow an illustrative detriment to human life promoted by big food corp is rather deceptive ? Isn't it ? Why not say, "eat less sugars" ?
Why don't they say which strain of Candida ?
Why don't they say that Yeast is bad, period ?
Isn't this about eating better ?.....and not buying a pill to do so ?
They claim that buying a pill will allow you to eat anything you want.
Remember, this is about buying a product to eliminate an imbalance, rather than to adjust your diet to do the exact same thing.

Ok, the video is BS. If you take the Candida part of, 40% is left, and as I said, this part (not 80% though) is informative and stimulating.

The message would be: eat healthy! :)
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Ok, the video is BS. If you take the Candida part of, 40% is left, and as I said, this part (not 80% though) is informative and stimulating.

The message would be: eat healthy! :)
True....eat healthy. I agree.
The video is using scare tactics to sell their product, and highlighting that above "eat healthy'.
Just because "big food corps" sell products high in sugars, does not mean there is a secret path to hurt consumers by forcing them to consume refined or other sugars. I know of no "eat more sugar" diets.
The video uses term like "sugar pushers", or "food conglomerates" to make it seem they are out to harm consumers' health.
The radical health community likes to think that by simply selling "Mars Bars" (example)....the food corps are thriving on (and pushing) the unhealth of it's patrons.....when in fact it is the demand of the consumer that drives the consistent marketing of these type products.
Perhaps this falls into the "free market" category....and is just one-of-many ingestible products that people need to regulate amongst themselves.
 

Curtispsf

New Member
Recent studies have suggested that multivitamins and supplements when taken by well-nourished adults have no clear benefit or can be harmful.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/health/multivitamins-studies/
An argument could be made that many studies are biased against anything not promoted by big Pharma so I am just as unlikely to disbelieve a "this cures cancer" amd "this is worthless" study when it's touted by organizations such as CNN which does absolutely NO independent research and is just a parrot saying what it's heard.

When it comes to scientific research about the value of vitamins (drugs), my preference is to use Pub Med. I also think "candida" is a lovely name.
I'd like to introduce you to my daughter, Candida Robustaca. She's from France. :rolleyes:
 

Bill

Senior Member.
An argument could be made that many studies are biased against anything not promoted by big Pharma so I am just as unlikely to disbelieve a "this cures cancer" amd "this is worthless" study when it's touted by organizations such as CNN which does absolutely NO independent research and is just a parrot saying what it's heard.
It can also be argued that the studies aren't biased. They just don't produce results that nutritional supplement industry wants to hear. If nutritional supplements had to meet the level of proof required by the pharmaceutical industry a lot of the claims about the supplements would disappear and the public would stop spending money on some of these dubious products because they would be withdrawn from the market.

What research would CNN do? They are reporting on an editorial from "The Annals of Internal Medicine", they told you where to find the studies that are the basis for the editorial (the same edition of "The Annals of Internal Medicine") and they include responses from people in the nutritional supplement industry that disagree with the editorial and its findings and point to some of the deficiencies in the studies. There's not much more they can do in this case.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
An argument could be made that many studies are biased against anything not promoted by big Pharma so I am just as unlikely to disbelieve a "this cures cancer" amd "this is worthless" study when it's touted by organizations such as CNN which does absolutely NO independent research and is just a parrot saying what it's heard.

When it comes to scientific research about the value of vitamins (drugs), my preference is to use Pub Med. I also think "candida" is a lovely name.
I'd like to introduce you to my daughter, Candida Robustaca. She's from France. :rolleyes:
Like Bill said, it's just CNN reporting on the editorial. You can get the story from any number of news sources or websites.
http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-s...xperts-dont-waste-your-money-on-multivitamins
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ins-NOTHING-protect-illness-experts-warn.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2014/01/13/the-top-six-vitamins-you-shouldnt-take/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/bbc-programme-reveals-vitamins-could-2389293#.UuEQmBAo6Hs

How is CNN promoting big pharma in all this? Seems to me they are promoting eating a well balanced diet.
 
Last edited:

rcas94114

New Member
To claim that "Candida" is somehow an illustrative detriment to human life promoted by big food corp is rather deceptive ? Isn't it ? Why not say, "eat less sugars"
I would think the part about sugar killing cattle and dogs communicated that point pretty clearly?

Why don't they say which strain of Candida ?
They do. Candida Albicans at 16:04. Though they could do a better job of making that clear throughout.

Why don't they say that Yeast is bad, period ?
Because not all yeast are bad. Nutritional yeast, for example.

Isn't this about eating better ?.....and not buying a pill to do so ?
They claim that buying a pill will allow you to eat anything you want.
Remember, this is about buying a product to eliminate an imbalance, rather than to adjust your diet to do the exact same thing
While technically you are correct, the practical application is not so simple to accomplish.

Eating better is something that many people don't know how to do. A pill like this is a tool on a path to good health, not a means to an end. For those of us with busy lifestyles that preclude full time healthy eating, health conditions that require medication which destroys healthy intestinal flora or just lack of knowledge of how to eat healthy, taking a pill to promote better health is certainly better than the alternative.

While I abhor the infomercial tactics, many of the points they make *are* sound.
 
Last edited:

Tad Simmons

New Member

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-08-18 at 11.45.06 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-08-18 at 11.45.06 PM.png
    47.4 KB · Views: 106

Hevach

Senior Member.
Accreditation makes all the difference.

Despite what the BBB says to the contrary, they're basically pay-to-play and money will fix a bad rating. My workplace dropped from an A to a B- because a customer wasn't satisfied with the resolution to his complaint (he backed his car into the building and wanted us to pay for damages to it). Because we weren't accredited, the complainant always got to decide if the result was negative or positive regardless of whether it had merit or not, and he wasn't happy that we just weren't going to buy him a new car after his insurance check to pay for our wall bounced.

We were told they'd simply reverse the outcome if we paid $450 to be accredited for the year, because for accredited businesses, a BBB agent (advised by a representative of your business) decides if a complaint has merit, and if the resolution was equitable. In practice, unless your cashier punched the guy, that representative can game that setup to the point that it's basically the business who decides.
 

KAT

Active Member
Recent studies have suggested that multivitamins and supplements when taken by well-nourished adults have no clear benefit or can be harmful.

Have you actually read that article? It's based on 3 studies, the first a meta-analysis itself which are always suspect for confirmation bias errors. Anyway here goes
my bolding HUH??? o_O

my bolding again. So how did they manage to include this in their report?????

Nobody takes Vitamins for the purposes looked at, so what does this prove? It's like saying checking your radiator coolant and engine oil weekly won't make your tyres last longer. That's not why people check their fluids.

And then you'd need to define "well nourished" and then prove the people buying supplements (or having supplements sold to them) are indeed so nourished.
 

KAT

Active Member
It can also be argued that the studies aren't biased. They just don't produce results that nutritional supplement industry wants to hear.

Before everyone starts to go CT about this :

Feeding studies are notoriously difficult to do, especially longer-term ones. There are issues of
* do they really take/eat what they say
* do they recall correctly
* if its a diary arrangement do they really remember to do it daily
* do they judge amounts and portions correctly
* how well do they remember a year back
* for vitamins, do they tick the box even in the week they'd run out
* do they get the same formula every time
* etc etc

In other words it is guesswork from the word go. At least in a pill/placebo study, the dosage is known, as it is provided. Where they are asked "did you take vitamins and what sort for the past 5 years" the truth is going to be a big casualty. Yet dosage is important, same as with drug trials.
Yet, unless we're testing a fast acting poison like cyanide, the studies do need to be over a long time, but compliance diminishes with time.

So ANY feeding study has to be closely looked at to see if their methods were correct, or at least reasonable. Don't forget they have to squeeze a result out of it, by hook or by crook, after doing it for 3 or 4 years. Also check the age and health descriptions. I've seen 10 year studies started on women age 70 at baseline, sure they'll get a fair few deaths in that lot.

Only institutionalized studies can be accurate, ideally where the subjects can't cheat. In other words, prisoners. This I believe is now illegal in many places, used to be popular up to the mid 1960's IIRC.

Short version: feeding studies are not biased, so much as impossible to be accurate. Take them with a big grain of salt (and studies that say that is bad for you are included here).
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Before everyone starts to go CT about this :

Feeding studies are notoriously difficult to do, especially longer-term ones. There are issues of
* do they really take/eat what they say
* do they recall correctly
* if its a diary arrangement do they really remember to do it daily
* do they judge amounts and portions correctly
* how well do they remember a year back
* for vitamins, do they tick the box even in the week they'd run out
* do they get the same formula every time
* etc etc

In other words it is guesswork from the word go. At least in a pill/placebo study, the dosage is known, as it is provided. Where they are asked "did you take vitamins and what sort for the past 5 years" the truth is going to be a big casualty. Yet dosage is important, same as with drug trials.
Yet, unless we're testing a fast acting poison like cyanide, the studies do need to be over a long time, but compliance diminishes with time.

So ANY feeding study has to be closely looked at to see if their methods were correct, or at least reasonable. Don't forget they have to squeeze a result out of it, by hook or by crook, after doing it for 3 or 4 years. Also check the age and health descriptions. I've seen 10 year studies started on women age 70 at baseline, sure they'll get a fair few deaths in that lot.

Only institutionalized studies can be accurate, ideally where the subjects can't cheat. In other words, prisoners. This I believe is now illegal in many places, used to be popular up to the mid 1960's IIRC.

Short version: feeding studies are not biased, so much as impossible to be accurate. Take them with a big grain of salt (and studies that say that is bad for you are included here).
Do you have any evidence to support your claims?
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Before everyone starts to go CT about this :

Feeding studies are notoriously difficult to do, especially longer-term ones. There are issues of
* do they really take/eat what they say
* do they recall correctly
* if its a diary arrangement do they really remember to do it daily
* do they judge amounts and portions correctly
* how well do they remember a year back
* for vitamins, do they tick the box even in the week they'd run out
* do they get the same formula every time
* etc etc

In other words it is guesswork from the word go. At least in a pill/placebo study, the dosage is known, as it is provided. Where they are asked "did you take vitamins and what sort for the past 5 years" the truth is going to be a big casualty. Yet dosage is important, same as with drug trials.
Yet, unless we're testing a fast acting poison like cyanide, the studies do need to be over a long time, but compliance diminishes with time.

So ANY feeding study has to be closely looked at to see if their methods were correct, or at least reasonable. Don't forget they have to squeeze a result out of it, by hook or by crook, after doing it for 3 or 4 years. Also check the age and health descriptions. I've seen 10 year studies started on women age 70 at baseline, sure they'll get a fair few deaths in that lot.

Only institutionalized studies can be accurate, ideally where the subjects can't cheat. In other words, prisoners. This I believe is now illegal in many places, used to be popular up to the mid 1960's IIRC.

Short version: feeding studies are not biased, so much as impossible to be accurate. Take them with a big grain of salt (and studies that say that is bad for you are included here).
If you look at the whole thing there is nothing CT about my statement when taken in context.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
This is their their CLAIM:

True Prostate Flow supports your total bladder health – leading to a better night's sleep and more energy through the day.

This is their DISCLAIMER:

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

So I ask myself, what exactly are the effects of ingesting Prostate Flow?
 

KAT

Active Member
This is their DISCLAIMER:

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

That does not mean it doesn't work (nor that it does). It is required by law.

http://www.fda.gov/food/dietarysupplements/qadietarysupplements/#what_info
[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JRBids

Senior Member.
Eating better is something that many people don't know how to do. A pill like this is a tool on a path to good health, not a means to an end. For those of us with busy lifestyles that preclude full time healthy eating, health conditions that require medication which destroys healthy intestinal flora or just lack of knowledge of how to eat healthy, taking a pill to promote better health is certainly better than the alternative.

While I abhor the infomercial tactics, many of the points they make *are* sound.

If it sounds too good to be true.....

A pill like this is going to appeal to 1. people who really don't need it but are into this type of thing (supplements, magic bullets, one type of health nut) and 2. people who need to change to change their lifestyle but are too lazy.

For the most part I eat healthy, but I could do better. I know a lot of much busier people who eat a lot healthier. You are correct, many people don't know how (or don't care).

I don't see a difference between big pharma giving you a pill to fix the symptom rather than going to the cause, and this company.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
That does not mean it doesn't work
It does typically.

In this case they claim:
An essential supplement for all men over the age of 40 experiencing any of the following symptoms:
  • trouble urinating
  • interrupted streams
  • frequent bathroom trips during the day OR night
  • weak streams
  • a feeling of needing to urinate quickly after your last bathroom trip.
True Prostate Flow supports your total bladder health – leading to a better night's sleep and more energy through the day.
If this “supplement” that they are selling really improved urine flow then they’d run it through trials and get certified as a drug. The disclaimer represents a legal loophole that lets various hawkers to market pills/drugs as “dietary supplements” whether it is this prostate health stuff or cyanobacteria pills. This isn’t a matter of doing a feeding trial over the course of years to figure out what ratio of carb/protein/fat produces the lowest bodyfat and most muscle mass while trying to control for adherence to diet, exercise levels and frequency, etc… A fairly short term trial should be able to quantify effects if the pill performs as claimed. My default assumption is that products like this stick by the disclaimer because their product essentially does nothing.

Reading on to their FAQ

When your prostate first starts to enlarge, it's increase in cells put pressure on the urethral canal. With the narrowing of that canal, the prostate has to contract more forcefully to push urine through. This strengthens your prostate so it contracts even when small amounts of urine are present, thus causing frequent trips to the bathroom at night.
.

They apparently failed anatomy and physiology class. I don’t imagine they know how to do a drug trial. They probably did go to communications and law class so they know how to market products and make vague un-actionable claims.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
I don't see a difference between big pharma giving you a pill to fix the symptom rather than going to the cause, and this company.
There are three differences, which one applies here isn't clear.

In the best of cases, these companies use active ingredients in natural, impure forms, with all their natural contaminants present. Say there's a fantastic medical substance in castor beans. "Big phrama" sells you that compound in its purist available form, dietary supplements just give you castor beans and hope there's more medicine than ricin.

In the more common cases, these companies give you something that either hasn't been tested, or, VERY frequently, failed tests. There's also a lot of cases where there's nothing actually there (and this isn't just limited to homeopathy, where "nothing there" is the whole point), and you're just paying for an inert tablet.

There's also a lot of undisclosed intentional ingredients, not just impurities. Some of these supplements have been found to include steroids, OTC drugs, and in rare cases prescription drugs or drugs not even approved for use in the US.


So, really, the difference comes down to the fact that big pharma has to disclose all the ingredients and impurities, are tested for compliance and suffer crushing penalties for failing to do so, and is immensely regulated with massive legal liabilities if a drug does not perform as advertised.

On the other hand, supplement companies don't have to disclose many of the ingredients (and have been getting away with not disclosing ones they're supposed to for years), are not checked for compliance and get sad slaps on the wrist when caught, is largely unregulated, and is actually shielded from some of the liability for their drugs failing to perform as advertised or destroying people's livers, because they never actually said the stuff does anything at all.
 

Jason

Senior Member
If this “supplement” that they are selling really improved urine flow then they’d run it through trials and get certified as a drug.
Do some companies opt not to do the trials due to funding and or cost associated with them. Or are all companies who elect not to get certified bogus...
 

KAT

Active Member
That doesn't answer the question. What exactly are the effects of ingesting Prostate Flow?

No idea. Not having a prostrate myself I've never looked into "cures" for it. If you can discover what this substance contains, you can Google the active ingredients and see what the real research says, if anything. Or you might find other brands of "supplements" that are cheaper. Or help your hair grow back as a bonus. (Just guessing,I'm not in that market).
 

KAT

Active Member
They apparently failed anatomy and physiology class. I don’t imagine they know how to do a drug trial. They probably did go to communications and law class

Nope, disagree. For the law they hire people who passed law school.

If this “supplement” that they are selling really improved urine flow then they’d run it through trials and get certified as a drug.

Well, it's a natural supplement, so can't be patented, so no huge return on what it costs to do the trials for FDA approval. This way they need less ROI but can still sue on trademark grounds if someone copies them too closely. Otherwise, the market is big enough for many to make a living.

It's basically yet another (but expensive) version of old home remedies or native (to somewhere) herbal concoctions people used to use, with more or less success, before anatomy an physiology lasses ever existed. For many people this is cheaper to try on a DIY basis than going to a doctor they can't afford to get a script for a drug that costs 4 or 5 days' income. From my experience living in a country with National health coverage, places where the real doctor is free or affordable, these old-made-new solutions are not too widely used. For minor ailments, and adding in the placebo effect, I see nothing wrong with using old remedies, but not at their prices.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Do some companies opt not to do the trials due to funding and or cost associated with them. Or are all companies who elect not to get certified bogus...
That’s a fair question given my broad statement but it should be explored in another thread. As far as this thread is concerned, they aren’t producing any test results but are plowing ahead with claims of a benefit. Without corroborating test results you are left to google their ingredient list to see if any real studies on the individual ingredients do anything that justifies their claims. Without corroborating test results to support their claims then a safe default assumption is that their product doesn’t work as claimed.
 

Jason

Senior Member
That’s a fair question given my broad statement but it should be explored in another thread. As far as this thread is concerned, they aren’t producing any test results but are plowing ahead with claims of a benefit. Without corroborating test results you are left to google their ingredient list to see if any real studies on the individual ingredients do anything that justifies their claims. Without corroborating test results to support their claims then a safe default assumption is that their product doesn’t work as claimed.
I agree, and it's more my fault, I was merely responding to the last set of opinions without taking the title of the thread into consideration.
 

KAT

Active Member
Some of these supplements have been found to include steroids, OTC drugs, and in rare cases prescription drugs or drugs not even approved for use in the US.

There were a few batches like this found, made in China. You can buy all sorts of supplements from China, including "formulated to your recipe" and have them delivered by container loads in custom packaging. They come to about 2 or 3 c at most per tablet, or say $1 plus the packet for a month's supply.

Here's some fish oil and weight loss things for a sample of how it goes (some have prices, most you need to apply, depends on quantity). When one place quotes $10 a kg for an ingredient and another $100 (personal experience) you do start to wonder what each really contains (missing or added).
http://www.alibaba.com/Health-Care-Supplement_pid100009254

Of course it is entirely possible they do make their own pills, locally. If you want to do that, the Chinese will sell you the machinery for it, too.

In the best of cases, these companies use active ingredients in natural, impure forms, with all their natural contaminants present.

You need to do further reading on this. The official line is, what you call "impure" and "natural contaminants" are enzymes and flavins and other things which are needed for full proper absorption of the main active ingredient. In some cases this may be true. This is often a major selling point of "natural".

So, really, the difference comes down to the fact that big pharma has to disclose all the ingredients and impurities, are tested for compliance

One complaint against Big Pharma is the additives and fillers, as well as possible residues of chemicals used in the manufacturing process. They fail to disclose impurities on labels, too. They are not tested for compliance -- all safety trials all have to be done by them, and it is their responsibility to keep to the recipe and other regulations. Questions get asked if there are complaints, then they can "test ad find nothing wrong" for several years before having to do something. VIOXX for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib
The drug company has to test and promise safety.

http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/howdrugsaredevelopedandapproved/
The reviews are sometimes sorely lacking.

http://www.propublica.org/article/fda-let-drugs-approved-on-fraudulent-research-stay-on-the-market
Cetero being a company that admitted most of its test were fraudulent for 5 years.

You can guess -- or you can Google.
 

KAT

Active Member
LANDRU I promised you this one

Feeding studies are notoriously difficult to do.............guesswork......

Do you have any evidence to support your claims?

http://www.uniteforsight.org/global-health-university/nutrition-study

That is just the short version of one. It is worth checking their reference studies, on some of the points. There is another one of about 25 pages, which I'll bring you when I find it.

Have fun. :D

EDIT here's a few more with a wider scope

Study design and hypothesis testing: issues in the evaluation of evidence from research in nutritional epidemiology
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/69/6/1315s.full

Adjustments to Improve the Estimation of Usual Dietary Intake Distributions in the Population
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/7/1836.full

The Reliability of Ten-Year Dietary Recall: Implications for Cancer Research
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/8/2663.full

Review and evaluation of innovative technologies for measuring diet in nutritional epidemiology
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/4/1187.full
 
Last edited:

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.

Exactly.

I'm very interested in staying healthy. I might be interested in taking some of these supplements... if I can figure out exactly what they are supposed to do, and how exactly they claim to do it. The point I'm driving towards is there doesn't seem to be any claims of evidence supporting these product's efficacy. Certainly no rigorous studies, in fact there don't seem to be any studies at all.

So how do we know they accomplish what the manufacturers claim? Replies like "it doesn't prove it doesn't work" are rather weak arguments; almost like suggesting we should take these supplements on the off chance that they might "work".

It's basically yet another (but expensive) version of old home remedies or native (to somewhere) herbal concoctions people used to use, with more or less success

"With more or less success"? what does that mean? can you quantify that statement? Should we use these herbal concoctions because they may or may not work, even though they may or may not damage the liver?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
LANDRU I promised you this one





http://www.uniteforsight.org/global-health-university/nutrition-study

That is just the short version of one. It is worth checking their reference studies, on some of the points. There is another one of about 25 pages, which I'll bring you when I find it.

Have fun. :D
What are the main points that support your contentions? Quote from them here. From the posting guidelines:
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread is not really conforming to posting guidelines. If there's a specific claim of evidence that can be debunked, please start a new thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Top