The surprising homeopathy medicines

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: The surprising drugs of homeopathy

by izentrop » 16/09/16, 21:07

Always the same one who does not know how to converse without drifting on verbal aggressions :o
To believe that the subject is scratching his convictions.

No problem, we went around the subject :)
1 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: The surprising drugs of homeopathy

by Obamot » 16/09/16, 21:09

Why "on"are you several? : Mrgreen:

for the moment the aggressor-manipulator, it's you with this thread we agree! Since the subject had already been exhausted around "the drug effect"homeopathy - a subject that you carefully avoid tackling - while these effects are far from zero since they sometimes succeed where chemistry has failed (see the work of HUG and CHUV, links already given in 'other thread) and this in particular in a field which is not the least concerning fight the pain!
► View Text
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: The surprising drugs of homeopathy

by Obamot » 16/09/16, 21:48

► View Text


PS: Moreover nowadays, and more and more, doctors have understood this well since they regularly use self-conviction methods (here I am not even talking about homeopathy!) And encourage even patients in this way! And even in disciplines like dentists, they manage to "regrow gum tissue" and all kinds of self-repairing mechanisms ... So yes, it must be said, there is a gray area in current knowledge, area in which we do not really know HOW it happens, but we are just starting to understand the "why" (which is not simple since it depends on each patient) even if there are things happening that we control better better. (Anyway, to say how much you delay, it's been more than 15 years that we know and practice these "things". Janic will undoubtedly say that it's been much longer ...)

So thank you for stopping your salads completely irrelevant compared to what it is done.

And there's no point pretending to be offended when you get kicked on the train : Mrgreen: it's deserved right?
Attachments
image.jpeg
Last edited by Obamot the 16 / 09 / 16, 22: 17, 2 edited once.
0 x
pedrodelavega
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3791
Registration: 09/03/13, 21:02
x 1311

Re: The surprising drugs of homeopathy

by pedrodelavega » 16/09/16, 22:16

Janic wrote:To resume the cited case of astronomy / biology each party is convinced that what it discovers proves, but is inapplicable to the other.
Lots of scientific fields overlap and mix.

Janic wrote:However, this homeopathy by dilution is the antpodes of allopathy and therefore not comparable from the same measurement criteria. As long as this aspect has not been understood, the controversy will last indefinitely.
Homeopathy has invented an opposite - "allopathy" - which you summarize in "bigpharma and bad drugs" but medicine is very vast: Homeopathy is found very "diluted" among all the basic sciences and others medical specialties. Each has provided proof of its existence and effectiveness. This is not the case with homeopathy which relies solely on collections of personal experiences which are deemed to be intrinsically biased (see your quote from Henri Poincaré).
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: The surprising drugs of homeopathy

by Obamot » 16/09/16, 22:17

Homeo is a "way"to achieve a"but"! Since the"but"is reached (one in two French people since they come back to it) we don't give a damn about"way". Your error (under nickname Izentrop, or under pseudo pedro-thing) is not to see the relationship between cause VS effect. For the hello ask Nabilla what she thinks : Mrgreen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=919MTa_kSmc
... for the effect of the shampoo, you might have to stop brushing too much : Mrgreen:
pedrodelavega wrote:Lots of scientific fields overlap and mix.

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannn not possible what a scoop! : Mrgreen:

So you use it when it suits you but omits it when it does not serve your arguments ... : Wink: very practical, it's worth you:

Image

image.jpeg


mental age ? : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Homeopathy 01

by Obamot » 17/09/16, 01:40

2 out of 3 doctors practice homeopathy in Switzerland!

So if we believed your perpetual nonsense, that would mean that 2 doctors out of 3 in Switzerland, would practice an unscientific medicine (including 64% of Swiss-German, there it becomes hilarious to think it ...) homeopathy which would produce relatively no effect in your opinion? Hey hey, at this rate homeopathy would have disappeared in less than a year? In short, such a short vision would deserve the donkey cap. The statistics are overwhelming and shows that you are making untenable remarks and completely out of the reality on the ground (as usual very often on other subjects, moreover ...)

Switzerland is indeed often set an example in all cutting-edge disciplines, as much as in avant-garde fields without turning its back on alternative medicine, provided that it gives solid and above all tangible results ( of which homeopathy is an integral part of the therapeutic arsenal).

psychologies.com wrote:Homeopathy: strengths and limits

- Strong points

Particularly effective for repeated respiratory infections, allergies (rhinitis, asthma, eczema), banal digestive diseases (hemorrhoids, constipation), venous insufficiency. Homeopathy treats both acute and chronic illnesses.

- Limits

Granules do not cure everything. Allopathy is therefore essential in case of emergency, or in serious chronic diseases: diabetes, heart disease, arteritis, etc.

Principle of homeopathy

If two spouses have caught the flu, the homeopath will not prescribe the same drugs to everyone, because one coughs a lot, the other does not; one feels much better when drinking hot, the other feels cold ... This medicine takes into account the patient's physical and psychological reaction modes, as well as their predispositions to various affections. By treating the “ground” of the patient, it restores this vital energy which allows the body to better resist attacks. Only a thorough interrogation can find the right prescriptions. Homeopathy is based on the principle of similarity: a toxic substance in high doses can, in tiny doses, relieve a patient. Belladonna, for example, normally causes a high fever. When diluted, it has the ability to heal. It is on this principle that all "active substances" are prepared in order to obtain homeopathic dilutions

Homeopathy is nowadays occasionally prescribed by eighteen thousand doctors, and five thousand general practitioners - just like certain pediatricians - who have made it their main therapy, after three years of additional training in medical school. They appear in the directory under the heading “homeopathic orientation”.

[...] These specialists represent less than 10% of French homeopaths, while Switzerland has two out of three [...]


In the current state of knowledge scientists, the phenomenon of high dilutions remains inexplicable [...]
[...] however, it was given explanations by Janic and by me (Obamot), here and in the other thread, these indications belonged to a compilation of the data of the state of the art of medicine cutting edge and not only homeopathic [...] and as such, I would like to warmly thank at least Janic, for the clarifications he gave to better understand this discipline. He took a lot of his time and did it with a lot of patience, which only makes one regret even more the mental pollution of people who express themselves without knowing anything about it and with annoying a priori ...

This is why some conventional doctors [...] mention it in terms of [...] products would not be better than holy water. All this did not prevent this medicine, created in 1808 by the German doctor Samuel Hahnemann, from being supported by countless studies scientists which demonstrate its effectiveness, and above all to be the big winner of the explosion of alternative medicines. Today, around 40% of French people use it, compared to 18% twenty years ago.

Source: Psychologies.com
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: The surprising drugs of homeopathy

by Obamot » 17/09/16, 02:24

Monday, April 30, 2012 Santé Nature Innovation, by Jean-Marc Dupuis who wrote:
Homeopathy: the evidence

I was delighted recently that the mainstream media is finally talking about scientific studies on vitamin D.

But I am dismayed today that they continue to hide from the public study for the Swiss government on the effectiveness of homeopathy: "Homeopathy in Healthcare - Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs", supervised by Doctor Gudrun Bornhöft and Professor Peter F. Matthiessen.

It is the largest study ever carried out by an official body on homeopathy. And she concluded not only that homeopathy works, but also that it is much more economical than conventional medicine. In fact, it works so well that patients should be reimbursed by Swiss Social Security.

The Swiss administration, which has exceptionally departed from its traditional neutrality, conducted this in-depth investigation into homeopathy and other alternative therapies in response to their great popularity, both among doctors and among patients.

Almost two-thirds of healthcare professionals in Switzerland recognize the benefits of alternative medicines, around 40% use them, and 85% of the population want them to be integrated into the official healthcare system.

This study follows a 1998 decision by the Swiss government to extend health insurance to several alternative treatment methods, such as homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), phytotherapy (herbal medicine) and anthroposophic medicine.

However, this measure was provisional, and subject to review based on the results of large-scale studies on the real effectiveness of these different treatments.

How the proof was made
The task has been assigned to the Swiss Network for Technology Health Assessment. It is a service created in 1999 by the Swiss federal government to assess the effectiveness of investments in the health sector.

The report, which is in the form of a thick book, is entitled "Homeopathy in health: effectiveness, relevance, safety, cost", and was chaired by Gudrun Bornhöft and Peter F. Matthiessen, from the University of Witten / Herdecke in Germany and from the Pan-Medion Foundation in Zurich.

They reviewed in detail all the major studies carried out on homeopathy :
- the most important pre-clinical research: on human cell, plant and animal lines, as well as biochemical studies;
- human trials, according to the golden rule of "double-blind randomized and placebo-controlled";
- meta-analyzes, epidemiological studies and finally "systematic reviews", in other words summaries of all the data scientists valid.

The methodology of this report had been used by the British Ministry of Health (National Health Service) to assess true efficacy, safety and the best economic options among the conventional treatments available, as well as by many international organizations.

The scientists Swiss had two major criteria for judging the quality of studies: internal validity (quality of study design and execution); external validity (to what extent the studies reflect the use made of homeopathy in real life).

Assessing external validity is particularly crucial, as research on homeopathy is often carried out by doctors and scientists who do not know the specific procedures of homeopathy or what treatments work best with which patients. Many studies published in major "scientific" journals claiming to show that homeopathy does not work are actually designed to fail in the first place because researchers do anything.

Researchers may even use the wrong remedy or use it incorrectly. Some homeopathic studies have tried to use a single treatment to eliminate a symptom, which is precisely contrary to the homeopathic approach which takes into account the terrain of the person to adapt the treatment!

After evaluating all the available data, the Swiss team concluded that high quality investigations of basic pre-clinical research prove that high dilution homeopathic remedies " cause specific and regulatory changes in living cells or organisms » (in the text : "Regulative and specific changes in cells or living organisms")

From " systematic reviews "Studies on humans, 20 of 22 have detected" at least one trend in favor of homeopathy ", and five have shown" clear evidence of homeopathic therapy ".

The report found particularly strong evidence for the use of homeopathy for upper respiratory infections and allergic reactions: of the studies showing an overall favorable result in favor of homeopathy, six out of seven appeared at least equivalent to conventional interventions and, out of sixteen placebo-controlled studies, half showed significant results with homeopathy.

Perhaps most striking is the fact that the report concludes that the effectiveness of homeopathy "Can be confirmed by clinical evidence" (in the text : "Can be supported by clinical evidence") And " considered safe ". Practiced correctly, writes the report, " classical homeopathy has few side effects and the use of high dilutions has no toxic effects ».

Bornhöft and Matthiessen concluded that there were " enough evidence in favor of the clinical efficacy of homeopathy, its harmlessness and its economic nature compared to conventional treatments ”.

Homeopathy effective at low cost
The Swiss government also studied whether homeopathy was a source of savings or, on the contrary, additional expenses, by studying data from Swiss insurers, including all costs of consultations, drugs, physiotherapy and laboratory analyzes.

Homeopathic physicians have been found to cost at least 15% less than conventional physicians, although patients seeking homeopathy generally have more chronic illnesses and poorer health - factors that would normally translate into higher cost.

When treatments for specific diseases were compared, homeopathy was found to save money: children affected by upper respiratory tract infections had fewer relapses and needed fewer antibiotics than people taking conventional drugs.

Homeopathy leads to less dependence on drugs. Among more than 500 patients suffering from rheumatic diseases, almost a third have been able to stop taking their conventional medication, and another third have been able to reduce their intake.

Homeopathic treatments for infertility offered one of the biggest savings over conventional treatments.

Homeopathy also reduces the cost of hospitalizations: patients using a homeopathic doctor are six times less likely to be hospitalized than those who are treated by conventional medicine.

Many other indirect savings are made through homeopathy, such as fewer sick days for patients who use it.

Finally, people who treat themselves with homeopathy have fewer side effects and a better relationship with their doctor. By comparing the satisfaction of 3000 patients treated by the two categories of medicines, a significantly higher number (53%) said they were “completely satisfied” with homeopathy against 43% for conventional medicines (4).

Alternative medicine becomes the norm
The Swiss are paving the way for the integration of alternative therapies into the conventional health system. Following the national referendum of 2009, where a two-thirds majority voted in favor of integrating alternative and complementary medicines into the official Swiss healthcare system, the Swiss Ministry of Health approved the reimbursement of the five most alternative medicines popular: homeopathy, herbal medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, anthroposophic medicine and neural therapy (based on the idea that trauma causes disturbances in the electromagnetic functioning of tissues).

But the most remarkable aspect of all of this is not only that, thanks to this new report, homeopathy entered the constitution and funded by public money, but that it happened in a country where two of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies are based.

This also happens precisely when the European Union, actively encouraged by the pharmaceutical industry, is busy prohibiting or drastically limiting the availability of nutritional supplements and many alternative treatments.

To know more :
https://www.santenatureinnovation.com/h ... preuv/#moz
1 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The surprising drugs of homeopathy

by Janic » 17/09/16, 08:43

Janic wrote :PTo resume the cited case of astronomy / biology each party is convinced that what it discovers proves, but is inapplicable to the other.
Lots of scientific fields overlap and mix.
Or else are incompatible! Try to see stars with a microscope or microbes and viruses with a telescope. However the ratio between the dimension of the universe and the Higgs boson is very close to the dilution ration used in homeo.
janic wrote: Now this homeopathy by dilution is the opposite of allopathy and therefore not comparable from the same measurement criteria. Until this aspect is understood, the controversy will last indefinitely.
Homeopathy has invented an opposite - "allopathy" -
You mix everything out of ignorance, it seems, about the appearance of homeopathy. This designation is imposed semantically on the medicine of the time which uses opposites: anti everything you want therefore by opponents, opposites, others and different from the Greek allos. So homeopathy not using these opposites becomes Homeo - omoios - the similar ones (and not evil by evil as the erroneous popular expression says elsewhere).
that you summarize in "bigpharma and the bad drugs"
One more confusion! There are no nasty drugs, just little, no, or very toxic drugs and only there they actually become nasty. unfortunately, it sometimes takes a long time to realize these toxicities in question. So aspirin, so widespread today, would probably not get marketing authorization currently, but to delete such a widespread product, without medical prescription, would create a small revolution.
Then big pharma is called into question because, at its initial humanist side, (helping the sufferings of this world) has been replaced by an industry which, like all the others, must be profitable (especially for shareholders, moreover ) or disappear. However if Mrs. SS was not there to spit in the bassinet, they would be greedy (with its royalties) and the populations would turn more, (even more than today) towards more economical methods, in addition to not not be toxic, while also being effective.
But medicine is very vast: Homeopathy is found very "diluted" among all the basic sciences and other medical specialties.
Very diluted, but it's "homeopathic"! (it's just for fun, homeopathy and dilution are two different things.) but it's already good to consider it as a fundamental science, it's a remarkable progress!
Each has provided evidence of its existence and its effectiveness. This is not the case with homeopathy, which is based solely on collections of personal experiences which are reputed to be intrinsically biased (see your quote from Henri Poincaré).
You seem to forget that all the therapies practiced come down to personal experiences since each individual reacts differently according to broad criteria.
Then deemed intrinsically biased! Reputed by whom?
It is as if, in politics, each party asserts that the others are deemed (by themselves only) inherently biased. A point of view that everyone is obviously entitled to have, but which does not present itself as anything other than an opponent's point of view.
so what does it mean then apart from these smear campaigns by ignorant people in homeopathy? These points have been seen and reviewed and starting over at square one will not change the fact that despite the barking of the dogs, the caravan continues to move forward.

Obamot hello
knowledge is like politics (that's it!) it is also through opposition that ideas progress. Who said: "the truth never triumphs, but its adversaries always end up dying"it's just a matter of time and patience.
For the article you cite, I noted this fundamental point which often discredits the homeo:
"Evaluating external validity is particularly crucial, research on homeopathy is often carried out by doctors and scientists who do not know the specific procedures of homeopathy nor which treatments work best with which patients. Numerous studies published in major "scientific" journals claiming to demonstrate that homeopathy does not work so well.actually designed to fail because researchers do anything.
Researchers may even use the wrong remedy or use it incorrectly. Some homeopathic studies have tried to use a single treatment to eliminate a symptom, which is precisely contrary to the homeopathic approach which takes into account the person's terrain to adapt the treatment!

Pedro, izentrop and others only emphasize this discrepancy between the skills necessary to practice H. and tinkering with some A. granule prescribers that will prove to be ineffective obviously and therefore facilitates these then justified smear campaigns. The error comes to make the confusion between inadequate prescription and therefore the ineffectiveness then noted of this one and therefore to throw the bath water and the baby with it.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: The surprising drugs of homeopathy

by Obamot » 17/09/16, 11:40

Janic wrote:Obamot hello
knowledge is like politics (that's it!) it is also through opposition that ideas progress. Who said: "the truth never triumphs, but its adversaries always end up dying"it's just a matter of time and patience.

:| : Wink:
Those who infringe the principles of humanity, justice and truth, already "are no longer" even before being dead ...
Shakespeare’s words take on their full meaning here, (I understand) I see this regularly ... don't you?
► View Text

Janic wrote:For the article you cite, I noted this fundamental point which often discredits the homeo:
Obamot, who posted the results of studies proving the effectiveness of homeopathy, wrote: "Evaluating external validity is particularly crucial, research on homeopathy is often carried out by doctors and scientists who do not know the specific procedures of homeopathy nor which treatments work best with which patients. Numerous studies published in major "scientific" journals claiming to demonstrate that homeopathy does not work so well.actually designed to fail because researchers do anything.
Researchers may even use the wrong remedy or use it incorrectly. Some homeopathic studies have tried to use a single treatment to eliminate a symptom, which is precisely contrary to the homeopathic approach which takes into account the person's terrain to adapt the treatment!

That's why I posted it. It coincided so well with what you told us for a long time, that I am a little ashamed now to have opposed you sharply at one time, a little out of prudence (and also out of ignorance, because I had wrongly seen it a drift, it must be said that in my defense, at that time research was not as advanced as today when it has become commonplace ... and especially at the moment we are talking about it more and more - in conjunction with the multiplier effect of endodrug production, your own perfectly correct term looking at the very recent breakthroughs in the scientific world (the real one and interpreting the data correctly) - unlike massive campaigns "anti"in the [r] dias, which don't mean anything anymore ...)
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: The surprising drugs of homeopathy

by Obamot » 17/09/16, 12:10

Decision of the Swiss authorities of 1998:

By decision of the Federal Department of Home Affairs (DFI) of July 9, 1998, five methods of complementary medicine (anthroposophic medicine, homeopathy, neural therapy, phytotherapy and traditional Chinese medicine) were admitted on July 1, 1999 in the ordinance on care insurance benefits for a limited period of June 30, 2005. Treatment is reimbursed only if the services are provided by a doctor holding the corresponding FMH certificate of competence. The decision to maintain or not these additional methods in the basic insurance is linked to the proof of their effectiveness, their adequacy and their economy. This final report summarizes the design and results of a Complementary Medicine Assessment Program (PEK), conducted from 1998 to 2005.

Program design: By a consensus that was not always easy to find between practitioners of complementary methods, representatives of conventional medicine and specialists in methodology, a basic procedure in two parts was defined.

In the first part (Evaluation of patient management by complementary medicine in Switzerland), it was a question of conducting empirical surveys which would allow to say:

a) what is the distribution of these five methods in Switzerland;
b) which doctors offer them, c) which patients use them;
d) what are the results of the treatments and
e) how the costs for these methods are presented.

Points b, c and e have been studied comparatively with conventional medicine. For methodological reasons and due to lack of time, it was not possible to carry out the evaluation of point d. In the second part (Literature review), it was a question of systematically gathering and analyzing the available international literature concerning efficacy, adequacy (defined here above all in terms of safety and use) and economic efficiency.

Results of the evaluation of patient care by complementary medicine in Switzerland:
In 2002, 10,6% of the Swiss population used at least one of the five methods of complementary medicine. The most frequently mentioned method is homeopathy. Complementary medicine practitioners differ from their colleagues in conventional medicine in terms of the type, location and equipment of their office. They treat patients who are rather young, better trained than the average and female. These patients have a rather positive attitude towards complementary medicine and present a rather chronic and relatively serious form of the affection from which they suffer. Doctors, on the other hand, rarely use devices to make their diagnosis and take more account of patients' wishes in the choice of therapy. The consultation is on average significantly longer than in conventional medicine. Patients are more satisfied with the way they are managed. Finally - except for herbal medicine - they indicate that they suffer from side effects much less often than when they are followed by practitioners of conventional medicine.
The overall annual cost of practitioners of complementary medicine is much lower than the average for conventional doctors. However, practitioners of complementary medicine generally treat fewer patients, and the majority - as said above - of rather young and female patients. The overall cost per patient adjusted for these factors does not differ significantly from that observed in conventional medicine. As for the cost structure, consultation costs are more important than medication costs. The actual increase in costs due to the coverage of the five complementary medicine methods as basic care has proven to be much more modest than expected. As for whether the use of complementary medicines should be considered as complementary or as a substitute, the figures collected and processed by the Evaluation Program do not allow us to answer them definitively.

Results of the literature review: The literature review was carried out using two sub-projects:
1) Each of the five complementary methods has been subject to a detailed global evaluation (evaluation report).
On the subject of effectiveness, the evaluation reports all lead without exception to a positive judgment. For phytotherapy and homeopathy in particular, this conclusion is based on the assessment of systematic reviews and published randomized clinical studies. For traditional Chinese medicine, there are many randomized studies of Chinese origin, but they are practically inaccessible in Western countries. For anthroposophic medicine, there is a very limited number of randomized studies and very many studies of other types. Finally, for neural therapy, there are a very small number of studies and numerous reports on individual cases. From the point of view of the evaluation committee, the interpretation that the evaluation reports make of the data collected concerning the efficacy is too optimistic for all the methods, in particular for neural therapy. The safety of the five methods is assessed positively, with certain restrictions with regard to neural therapy and traditional Chinese medicine. As for the use of these methods, data are only available for complementary medicine in general; but these indicate that in many countries it is very common and is still gaining importance. Finally, for economicity, there are only isolated studies which do not allow conclusions to be drawn with certainty; however, there are indications that for anthroposophic medicine and homeopathy, the costs generated are at least offset elsewhere.
2) Homeopathy, phytotherapy and traditional Chinese medicine were also the subject of a meta-analysis (systematic review with integrated statistical analysis) of clinical studies with placebo control.
No meta-analysis has been performed for anthroposophic medicine and neural therapy, as there are no or insufficient studies with placebo control for these methods. The placebo-controlled studies available on homeopathy do not reveal, in the opinion of the authors of the meta-analyzes, any other clear effect than the placebo effect. The evaluation report notes, however, a positive result for phytotherapy; finally, for traditional Chinese medicine, it is not possible to make a clear judgment. From a methodological point of view, it should also be considered here that the assertions of meta-analyzes have limited value.

Source: https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... Cw7k7SRJCQ
Last edited by Obamot the 17 / 09 / 16, 12: 34, 1 edited once.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 280 guests