+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Ultrasound Unsafe

  1. Link to Post #1
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,719 times in 9,343 posts

    Default Ultrasound Unsafe

    Shocker: the dangers of Ultrasound
    1/21/19
    by Jon Rappoport

    A book by the great researcher Jim West

    "Every time Jim West (also here https://www.amazon.com/Jim-West/e/B00KDKCBZY/) releases a new finding, it is a revelation.
    Some years ago, I wrote this about Jim:

    “I always find it riveting to come across an independent investigator who is breaking new ground, against all odds. Jim West is such a person. His meticulous analysis of West Nile Disease [in fact caused by toxic pollution, not a virus] has turned the establishment on its head. We should all thank him for his work. If I were the king of Pulitzers, I would give him a dozen. He is what truly deep reporting is all about. In a sane world, his revelations would bring about the firing of scores of so-called medical journalists and disease researchers, and he would be sitting at the top of the heap — not in order to exercise arbitrary power, but simply because he has trumped the lazy and the incompetent and the lying professionals who are supposed to tell us what is going on.”

    There are many other things I could say in praise of Jim’s work. Instead, I’ll present an excerpt from the notice of his new book. It’s a book you should have and read: “50 Human Studies, in Utero, Conducted in Modern China, Indicate Extreme Risk for Prenatal Ultrasound: A New Bibliography”. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00X06QDYS/

    It’s a book that should receive wide notice. It’s a book that should change standard medical practice. It’s a book that can save many lives.

    Press Release: May 2015
    Prenatal Ultrasound: A New Bibliography of Human Studies Conducted in Modern China
    “50 Human Studies, in Utero, Conducted in Modern China, Indicate Extreme Risk for Prenatal Ultrasound: A New Bibliography”

    Jim West has released his unprecedented Bibliography of critical ultrasound research, as a book, available at Amazon.com.
    Ultrasound is a highly controversial topic. It can now be said, without hyperbole, that an understanding of its mysteries are essential to the well-being of the individual and the human species.

    The word “ultrasound” commonly refers to diagnostic ultrasound, an acoustic technology utilized to view images of the fetus in real time, its position within the mother, and to view the mother’s reproductive organs. It is an economic boon to medical practitioners who advocate its routine use.

    Diagnostic ultrasound is widely declared to be “harmless” to the fetus (*), despite some mothers describing via online forums such as The Thinking Mother’s Revolution, https://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/ vaginal bleeding and pain, and others describing every detail related to ultrasound and pharmaceutical or vaccine associated damage to their child. Ultrasound is now being applied to most of the entire world population during its fetal stage. The health implications are vast in terms of physical and psychological health for the individual and society.

    (*) See: “Fetal Ultrasound”, John Hopkins Medicine Health Library.
    https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heal...ound_92,P09031
    Ultrasound appears to have set the human specie on a tragic path, due to the subtle and not-so-subtle effects of ultrasound exposure. Critics argue, for example, that the exponential rise in autism incidence is a product of fetal exposure to ultrasound. If they are correct, then it may take many generations to recover from this misguided application of medical technology.

    Technical History:

    Ultrasound imaging technology for diagnostic examinations evolved from a type of echo-imaging, originally developed as SONAR, a technology invented to detect submarines by pinging sound waves off the submarine hull and electronically measuring the echo, the duration required to reflect ultrasound from the submarine hull back to the source of the ultrasound.

    In the medical field, ultrasound has been in use for many decades, employed to generate “echo images” of the fetus. Ultrasound is not ordinary sound, however.

    It is a highly unusual form of sound when used for the purpose of prenatal or obstetric diagnostic examinations. Humans ordinarily are capable of hearing sounds in the range of 20 to 20,000 cycles per second (hertz). Ultrasound for fetal examination carries a frequency in the range of 3 to 9 megahertz, millions of cycles per second, above the EMF frequencies of the AM radio band.

    Ultrasound imaging technology has supplanted, to an extent, the earlier imaging technology, X-rays. That older technology is now known publicly to be hazardous, to be carcinogenic, however, it took decades for this knowledge to become public. The history of medical X-ray imaging may be a parallel for ultrasound history. X-rays were previously known to be a risk though continuously advocated as harmless by the medical profession.

    Hazards Unconfirmed:

    Ultrasound is known to have the potential to produce harmful biological effects in the fetus. This has been found via animal and cell studies. However, these hazards have supposedly not been confirmed by human studies. Funding for ultrasound studies has virtually disappeared since the late 1980s. despite the FDA raising ultrasound intensity limits in 1991.

    Cibull et al (2013) provides definitive assurance:
    “Although laboratory studies have shown that diagnostic levels of ultrasound can produce physical effects in tissue, there is no evidence from human studies of a causal relationship between diagnostic ultrasound exposure during pregnancy and adverse biological effects to the fetus.” — Sarah L. Cibull, BS, Gerald R. Harris, PhD, and Diane M. Nell, PhD. “Trends in Diagnostic Ultrasound Acoustic Output From Data Reported to the US Food and Drug Administration for Device Indications That Include Fetal Applications.” J Ultrasound Med 32 (2013): 1921–32.

    Confirmed in China:

    Unknown to Western scientists, the hazards of ultrasound have been confirmed in China since the late 1980s, where thousands of women, volunteering for abortion, thousands of maternal-fetal pairs, were exposed to carefully controlled diagnostic ultrasound and the abortive matter then analyzed via laboratory techniques.

    From these human studies, Professor Ruo Feng, of Nanjing University, published guidelines in 2000:

    “Commercial or educational fetal ultrasound imaging should be strictly eliminated. Ultrasound for the identification of fetal sex and fetal entertainment imaging should be strictly eliminated. For the best early pregnancy, avoid ultrasound.”

    Feng is very clear. He is also gentle. He could have written bluntly, “For a lesser quality pregnancy, use ultrasound.” He could have written “fetus” or “child” instead of “pregnancy”.

    A New Bibliography:

    An unprecedented Bibliography of Chinese ultrasound studies by Jim West, is now available, published as a book with commentary, illustrative graphs and tables. This is a presentation of arcana, i.e., vitally important but unknown scientific studies. The title is, “50 Human Studies Indicate Extreme Risk for Prenatal Ultrasound: A New Bibliography”.

    This is the most important bibliography and commentary ever compiled for the field of ultrasound criticism, though for legal reasons, its conclusions and implications should be suspended, pending trustworthy authoritative review.

    The book presents human studies conducted in modern China, which examine the results of in utero fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. They far exceed Western science in terms of technical sophistication, era relevancy, volume of work, and number of subjects. They bring empirical evidence for ultrasound hazards.

    These studies involve the exposure of over 2,700 maternal-fetal pairs to diagnostic ultrasound. The number of scientists involved are approximately 100. Pregnant women were carefully selected and then exposed to controlled ultrasound sessions. Ethical concerns were carefully observed. Abortive matter was examined via state-of-the-art technology, e.g., electron microscopy, flow cytometry, and various biochemical analysis (immuno- and histo-). The results were compared against the results of sham-exposed pregnant women (exposed at zero intensity).

    Chinese scientists measured damage to the brain, kidney, cornea, chorionic villi, and the immune system. They determined the amount of ultrasound exposure required to produce damage to the human fetus, and that amount was found to be very low. Ultrasound hazards to the human fetus were confirmed without doubt.

    Western scientists had previously found hazards via animal and cell studies, however, their findings were deemed inconclusive because they were not confirmed by human studies.

    Human studies can be of two types: 1) epidemiological studies, i.e., population reviews, and, 2) in utero exposure studies, where abortive matter is evaluated in a laboratory following diagnostic ultrasound exposure to the fetus in the mother.

    Western scientists have conducted only a few epidemiological studies, and virtually no human exposure studies. Epidemiological studies are complex, have many statistical variables, and are thus highly vulnerable to biased interpretation. They are often published as moot or statistically insignificant, despite finding patterns of ultrasound damage.

    Due to abortion ethics, in utero exposure studies were virtually banned in the Western realm. Within the entire world population, the medical industry has not reported one case of human damage. Thereby, without certain proof, authorities continued on with the assumption that humans were resistant to ultrasound toxicity.

    The Chinese studies were unknown in the Western realm and little known even in the East. These represent 23 years of critical research, from 1988 to 2011. Unfortunately, these studies were overwhelmed by a tremendous flood of studies that promote medical and therapeutic innovations for ultrasound.

    The Chinese studies have remained disconnected from the Western realm, beyond discussion outside of China, being the casualty of cultural and language gaps, and lacking a benefit for industry.

    These studies are not generally available through global search engines or medical databases. Even if a researcher knew the titles, the studies would not be found, however, they are available through internal links within the Chinese databases.

    The Research Path:

    As of 2013, Jim West began his research out of frustration. He had experienced the impossibilities of discussion whenever the topic of ultrasound hazards was attempted, even with his nearest friends. He always brought eloquent documentation, though to no avail. He was met with reflexive blocks. These were passive and aggressive, apparently out of fear of the birth process and a belief that ultrasound would provide assurance.

    Realizing that people require authoritative statements, Jim searched for a simple statement of empirical evidence that could not be denied.

    After several months of intensive research within the Western scientific realm, he, like others, realized there was little definitive evidence that would satisfy the strict industrial requirements, that is, there were few human studies of any kind. Human studies had been deemed by authorities to be essential for confirmation of hazards. He was aware of the hundreds of animal and cell studies, but they were known to be ill-designed and inconclusive. Excellent critical studies were contradicted by competing studies that declared ultrasound safe. Jim did find a few very strong animal studies that had not been contradicted, but they were ignored or rejected by mere authoritative assertion.

    Electrophoresis:

    As a working research theory, Jim hypothesized that the ideal modern ultrasound study would utilize a very sensitive type of chromatography, called “electrophoresis”, to detect cell damage caused by ultrasound exposure. Electrophoresis is a simple technology, the moving of electric current through a sample of biological matter in order to draw its various components through a gel-covered plate. The various components separate out through the gel, creating visual patterns for analysis. Electrophoresis is used to analyze biological complexes such as nucleic acid (DNA or RNA). It is employed, for example, in DNA fingerprinting, to identify people, their DNA, to detect their prior presence at a location, by examining samples of blood, hair, or tissue and matching those analytical results with suspects who had been similarly analyzed.

    Jim’s focus on electrophoresis lead to a Chinese electrophoresis study of ultrasound causation for DNA fragmentation in abortive matter. The study is published in pristine scientific format and published in English. The study’s references lead to an expanding tree of studies located in Chinese online databases such as CNKI. Though these studies are primarily in Chinese language, many contained an Abstract, translated into English manually or by machine software.

    Many studies were reviewed by professor Ruo Feng, of the Acoustic Institute at Nanjing University. He determined guidelines from the studies, stipulating that routine ultrasound be avoided. Only if there were exceptional medical indications should ultrasound be allowed, and at minimum intensity. Sessions should be very brief, no more than 3 minutes, 5 minutes at most. Multiple sessions should be avoided because hazards are cumulative. Sensitive organs were found damaged at 1 minute exposure.

    The Chinese studies echo and confirm the earlier, ignored and rejected, 1984 “Consensus Statement”, written and published by the National Institute of Health and signed by the preeminent American scientists of that era. (See: NIH, “Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging in Pregnancy: NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement” (February 6, 1984)) https://consensus.nih.gov/1984/1984U...ncy041html.htm

    Currently, the medical industry loudly claims that ultrasound is “harmless” while it advocates routine ultrasound for pregnant women and even prepubescent girls. It is not uncommon for ultrasound sessions to use intensities and durations far above those used in the Chinese studies.

    Jim has done the math and graphically illustrates the evidence, for example, this comparison of Western critical studies and Chinese studies in terms of durations to damage, when subjected to the average device intensity for a common diagnostic ultrasound session in B-mode. These durations are approximated extrapolations.

    Jim’s ultrasound causation model is fully compatible with the vaccine model, because it includes the concept of toxic synergy, and ultrasound is an effective synergist. Ultrasound is theoretically capable of initiating fetal vulnerabilities to subsequent toxic exposure. Thus the risk of subsequent exposure to vaccines, birth drugs, antibiotics and other environmental stressors would be raised by prenatal ultrasound, not in addition, but as a multiplier. (Emphasis added)"

  2. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    angelfire (22nd January 2019), Arcturian108 (25th January 2019), avid (22nd January 2019), Franny (26th January 2019), jjjones (23rd January 2019), petra (25th January 2019), Sadieblue (23rd January 2019), samildamach (25th January 2019), Slobbe (23rd January 2019), Sstarss (25th January 2019), Teknishun (23rd January 2019), toppy (23rd January 2019), what is a name? (23rd January 2019)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Ultrasound Unsafe

    Well u know Onawah, the wavelengths of ultra-sound run smack in the middle of 5G.. wavelengths.. the carrier medium is different but the WAVELENGTHS are similar, so exactly my point, the wavelength is dimensionally resonating with structure, and it is the ECHOS, the multi-path which becomes dangerous, not a steady state signal.. There is no way in a living organism to have ultrasound remain fixed, without bouncing - bouncing is what is needed, or the echoes for things to become visible..

    Ultrasound uses micro-wavelengths, not radio frequency microwave but audio frequency microwave.

  4. Link to Post #3
    Philippines Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th May 2013
    Age
    53
    Posts
    2,473
    Thanks
    4,148
    Thanked 9,024 times in 2,142 posts

    Default Re: Ultrasound Unsafe

    what should we expect from a medical system that is trying to harm people deliberately? I try to avoid as much of their crap, perhaps the best thing to do.

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bubu For This Post:

    jjjones (23rd January 2019), onawah (23rd January 2019), toppy (23rd January 2019), XelNaga (23rd January 2019)

  6. Link to Post #4
    England Unsubscribed ripple's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th December 2018
    Location
    south of England
    Posts
    296
    Thanks
    109
    Thanked 687 times in 212 posts

    Default Re: Ultrasound Unsafe

    Bob ,
    You clearly are our resident specialist in this and related matters so I am pleased to see you confirm that patients undergoing Ultrasound aren't exposed to ionizing radiation, making the procedure safer than diagnostic techniques such as X-rays and CT scans. In fact, there are no known harmful effects when used as directed and by a trained health care provider.
    However , I notice the FDA are cautious in certain areas and one of these is where main body organs are involved .According to them (FDA), sound waves from ultrasound therapy should not come into contact with any organs of your body. These highly sensitive organs include the following: heart, kidneys, liver, lungs, stomach, spleen, bowels, eyes, ears, ovaries, testicles, brain and spinal cord. Also, the sound waves should not come in contact over mucous membrane areas of the body, which include the mouth, nose, rectum and vagina. Further, ultrasound should not be used over areas of the body that have a metal implant embedded (e.g. pacemaker) as well as over any active growth plates (epiphyseal regions) in children.
    Why do they stipulate in this way or is it just ultra cautiousness to be 101% safe --- let's assume that illogical figure for discussion purposes ?

  7. Link to Post #5
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    7th July 2016
    Location
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,353
    Thanks
    4,771
    Thanked 4,337 times in 1,218 posts

    Default Re: Ultrasound Unsafe

    Thanks for posting. I'm keeping a close eye on autism and have noticed the rise. I don't discount any number of possible causes, and as a person who has gotten FAR TOO MANY ULTRASOUNDS in her lifetime, I'm curious if there's any evidence or speculation regarding health risk toward adults.

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Critics argue, for example, that the exponential rise in autism incidence is a product of fetal exposure to ultrasound. If they are correct, then it may take many generations to recover from this misguided application of medical technology.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to petra For This Post:

    onawah (25th January 2019)

  9. Link to Post #6
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    26th December 2010
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    9,562
    Thanks
    37,831
    Thanked 52,683 times in 8,856 posts

    Default Re: Ultrasound Unsafe

    Quote Posted by petra (here)
    Thanks for posting. I'm keeping a close eye on autism and have noticed the rise. I don't discount any number of possible causes, and as a person who has gotten FAR TOO MANY ULTRASOUNDS in her lifetime, I'm curious if there's any evidence or speculation regarding health risk toward adults.

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Critics argue, for example, that the exponential rise in autism incidence is a product of fetal exposure to ultrasound. If they are correct, then it may take many generations to recover from this misguided application of medical technology.
    Yes yes yes, I did wonder the same about autism and ultrasounds.

    And ultrasounds in adults - however, adults do not have a speedy cell development. Ultrasounds affect the cell in its developing process, at a very specific time (intracellular signaling during development vs microwaves). More cell developing you have (which is the galloping case in children and yet much more in foetuses), more affected you may become (told by an old friend of my family, specialist engineer Phd in ultrasounds).

    I do not know what you think of that Bob, but I have a great tendency to believe the direct researcher in the field.
    Last edited by Flash; 25th January 2019 at 18:07.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    petra (29th January 2019)

  11. Link to Post #7
    Germany Avalon Member
    Join Date
    31st May 2010
    Location
    SW Germany
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,695
    Thanks
    2,275
    Thanked 8,537 times in 1,593 posts

    Default Re: Ultrasound Unsafe

    it's been long known that sound frequencies can have either a healing or destructive effect depending on the usage and the magnitude of their usage;

    'music' in all of its forms can either have a very healing or disruptic effect-

    since in the west we've now tuned from A432 t0 A440 it's been very unsettling-

    as a former professional musician I'm more than aware of the positive/or destructive nature of sound/music-

    sadly, we're at the latter-

    Larry
    Last edited by Cardillac; 25th January 2019 at 22:53.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cardillac For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (26th January 2019), Flash (26th January 2019), petra (29th January 2019)

  13. Link to Post #8
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Ultrasound Unsafe

    Quote Posted by ripple (here)
    Bob ,
    You clearly are our resident specialist in this and related matters so I am pleased to see you confirm that patients undergoing Ultrasound aren't exposed to ionizing radiation, making the procedure safer than diagnostic techniques such as X-rays and CT scans. In fact, there are no known harmful effects when used as directed and by a trained health care provider.
    However , I notice the FDA are cautious in certain areas and one of these is where main body organs are involved .According to them (FDA), sound waves from ultrasound therapy should not come into contact with any organs of your body. These highly sensitive organs include the following: heart, kidneys, liver, lungs, stomach, spleen, bowels, eyes, ears, ovaries, testicles, brain and spinal cord. Also, the sound waves should not come in contact over mucous membrane areas of the body, which include the mouth, nose, rectum and vagina. Further, ultrasound should not be used over areas of the body that have a metal implant embedded (e.g. pacemaker) as well as over any active growth plates (epiphyseal regions) in children.
    Why do they stipulate in this way or is it just ultra cautiousness to be 101% safe --- let's assume that illogical figure for discussion purposes ?
    Hi Ripple - I could speculate a little bit on ultrasound and some phenomena which is potentially dangerous.

    Ultrasound physically moves the molecules, or the parts of stuff. When they move they create heat.

    Like a microwave oven can create heat within a substance which can absorb hundreds if not thousands of watts of "vibrational energy", when physical movement happens, the friction between is heat. And with heat one can have boiling locally, and gas liberation, and of all things because of the speed of physically vibrating, cavitation.

    A 100 watt microwave transmitter or a 100 watt ultrasound transmitter, coupling that much energy into the body is dangerous because of the above effects.

    There are ultrasonic tissue digesters (call them blenders) and they heat and cut apart tissues into the basic components.

    Too much heat and tissue suffers like who want's to ultrasound and homogenize a brain?

    I seem to recall a device that ET's used in a movie series that Roy Thinnes the actor, featured in, called The Invaders that aired on ABC Television for two seasons, from 1967 to 1968. When the Aliens wanted to do an "expediency" (another name for a "hit"), one of their Agents would apply a 3 waveform ultrasonic homogenizer device to the neck/skull of the victim and they would suffer strokes, embolisms, heart failure, and so forth.. All appearing to be a natural death, but the expediency being accomplished offered a problem solved for the Aliens. Roy's character David Vincent was obsessed with revealing to the world about all the dangers present about and within "the system", about the "Aliens are already here", and David being totally obsessed, it was observed that he was hardly ever really believed by anyone. Obsessive behaviour most certainly does that and one could watch that in action in the movie series; and the Sci-Fy community played on that. And it still does. IMHO.

    All too often stuff from the 50's and 60's and later ends up in the conspiracy circles, because it is a convenient hearsay to use, because there is an undercurrent that can be used to bolster fear and worry. Sci-fy back then installed a lot of programs and fear in people that could be used by special interests later. The MK programs were about implanting FEAR in people for instance amongst other things, like key robotic activity could be induced in people when certain key buttons were pressed using the victim's perception or beliefs - they so easily could be triggered - the victim will fight tooth and nail that nothing out of the ordinary is happening with them...that they are totally right and acting as a 'savior for society' ; simply amazing the MK's programming effectivness. Was it right? Hardly, but it was done and those implants are still walking around, and still dramatizing, and still doing their assigned jobs..

    A 1 watt per square centimeter ultrasound ( http://www.electrotherapy.org/modali...se-calculation) has therapeutic benefits, as would radio diathermy have additional benefits to provide deep tissue massage, and deep tissue warming, improving circulation. It facilitates healing.

    In massage a brutal massage by a kick boxer, no matter how it is labeled is most certainly not healthy. Putting one's hand in an operating microwave oven ( because the wavelengths are indeed similar to ultrasound wavelengths ) is sure to create damage and burns.. A 100 watts per square centimeter exposure to an operating vibrational source that can move, or agitate molecules is an insane activity. So is putting one's hand into a meat grinder or blender.

    The meat grinder or blender is a physical device with physical strength, and some horsepower to grind or damage tissue. Unless microwave of similar power density as a grinder or blender or heater is used, the effects are not physically perceivable. Can a stimulus of a weaker microwave source be picked up? Only under special conditions which I have described elsewhere. No therapeutic microwave-like ultrasonic carrier system with lower powers below certain heating thresholds is considered damaging.. But the specific thresholds of power for various organs and tissues has to be respected.

    Thing is therapeutic treatment ultrasound is such a low level intensity. Would one put such on the eyes or the back of the brain, not at all. Putting such on a messed up bruised arm muscle would be well within the safe power levels.. Needless to say, it is about power, depth of penetration all across the board when dealing with microwave wavelengths. If it is not heating, not causing cavitation, not causing tissue homogenization (like putting into a blender), it is considered safe because the power level is just not there to cause damage. Raise the power level up to having capillaries start leaking or bubbles form in the tissue, and one has issues.

    Unless one is Roy Thinnes bumping into Alien Invaders with brain homogenizers I just don't see any reason to be concerned. Possibly some dastardly weapons designer will choose to play around with key resonant frequencies, and sub-harmonics, and pulse rates, and mix 3 or 4 ultrasonic signals together (with 100 watt peak power pulses) and come up with an ultrasonic-microwave lens that could terrorise people. I haven't seen nor heard of any such thing.

    Point is this - any microwave signal either electromagnetic or ultrasonic, if the beam power is sufficient to cause heating, then there is a danger.

    For instance, back in the 50's and 60's an ultrasonic remote control was used with TV sets to change channels, and raise and lower the volume, and maybe even turn the TV on and off.

    If one held that infront of one's ear for instance a bit of discomfort would be there briefly while the ultrasonic rod was physically struck with a small pulse "hammer". Power level was minuscule and not a threat to anything, no cavitation, no heating, no homogenization. Ultrasound devices have been around for ages. Same with other microwave sources.. No heat no cavitation no homogenization no threat. Only threat is the fear being created and holding people hostage without giving accurate information of where concerns should be IMHO.
    Last edited by Bob; 25th January 2019 at 23:47.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts