Anne Dachel okay with everyone else’s kids dying so long as her’s make it out

Image representing New York Times as depicted ...

Image via CrunchBase

It was inevitable that as soon as the NY Times released its short but devastating review of the latest anti-vaccine propaganda flick, The Greater Good, the folks at Age of Autism wouldn’t take it lying down and mount an assault on the critic.

And sure enough, Anne Dachel delivered in spades with this amusingly hyperbolic screed against a film critic for not liking their shitty movie. Not since The Brown Bunny has there been such a petty, childish response to a bad review.

Just how absurd, fundamentally dishonest, and hyperbolic is Dachel’s response? Look at the title of her piece:

New York Times Reviews The Greater Good Movie Tells Vaccine-Injured Children to Drop Dead

Um, did I miss that part? I read the review and it said nothing…NOTHING of the kind. What film critic Jeannette Catsoulis DID say was that the film was an “…emotionally manipulative, heavily partial look at the purported link between autism and childhood immunization” that “…would much rather wallow in the distress of specific families than engage with the needs of the population at large.”

Catsoulis continues by pointing out that the whole thesis and line of inquiry of the film is entirely “fundamentally flawed”, since “it fails to point out that even were such a link proved definitively, all that matters is that its victims number significantly fewer than those of the diseases vaccinations are designed to prevent.” In other words, the film sets up a total straw man argument by focusing on the wrong questions.

Catsoulis argues the film isn’t as balanced as it pretends to be as it didn’t show the suffering of children who contract the very diseases the vaccines prevent:

“A cost-benefit analysis is completely ignored. Also elided are the mostly forgotten horrors of measles, mumps, chickenpox and polio: instead of lingering at a graveside with grieving parents who believe vaccines killed their baby girl, perhaps the filmmakers could have unearthed some footage of children encased in iron lungs.”

Though a correction has been made to the review because apparently the film does show children in iron lungs, it’s quite clear from Catsoulis’ mistake that this is clearly not emphasized and certainly not given equal attention to the very few individual cases of alleged vaccine injuries the film is much more interested in feeding to the public.

But that’s where Anne Dachel’s whiny response takes an odd turn as she leaps many dimensions of logic to argue that it’s not reasonable for health practitioners to place greater importance on protecting the most lives because they should apparently only care about protecting Anne Dachel’s kids:

Phrases like, “needs of the population at large,” “cost-benefits analysis,” and “all that matters is that its victims number significantly fewer than those of the diseases vaccinations are designed to prevent” are really frightening to me. It makes me think of things like “peripheral damage” and “acceptable loss.”

That’s because you’re insane, Anne. The terms you describe come from military strategy, not medical practice. In fact, such behavior is considered highly unethical in medicine and could lead to losing one’s license to practice (ya know, like Dachel’s buddy Wakefield lost his license for his callous disregard for child welfare). Perhaps the single best example demonstrating that medicine doesn’t work that way is with organ donation. Doctors can’t just harvest organs from a terminal patient to save numerous other patients. Hell, if a person drops dead this very minute, doctors can’t just take the organs. The person would have to have volunteered to be an organ donor. So even if the fate of five other terminal patients rests on the organs of one dude who’s already dead, they still must respect that person’s wishes as best as they can. This is not something that is taken lightly. But yes, generally doctors have to play a numbers game and do the best they can to protect the most people. It’s almost like that’s their job or something.

But what this all comes down to is, exactly as the review says, a cost-benefit analysis. Doctors often have to make major life and death decisions, sometimes very quickly. This often means going with what has the best odds of a positive outcome paired with the lowest odds of making things worse. It’s not perfect. Sometimes medical procedures can fail or even make things worse. Nobody knows for sure how it will all turn out in the end. But keep in mind that even seat belts have been responsible for some deaths. So does that mean we should all stop wearing seat belts? No. That’s absurd because when you look at a cost-benefit analysis, it’s clear that seat belts save far more lives than they hurt.

Like seat belts, vaccines aren’t 100% safe. And everyone acknowledges this fact openly. That’s the whole point of Catsoulis’ criticism. Everyone already agrees vaccines CAN cause injuries. The only real point of contention if a legitimate one existed (it doesn’t) would be whether vaccines do more harm than good. And the answer to that question is absolutely not.

Lastly, Dachel exploits a common argument among anti-vaxxers, implying that vaccine requires some sort of child sacrifice. It does not, at least no more than saying automobiles require child sacrifice. The fact is that as long as we drive cars, some people will get killed in car accidents. But that’s not a requirement of society’s continued use of cars. To suggest otherwise is absurd. Same with vaccines though even more so. Cars kill thousands of Americans every year. Vaccines haven’t killed even one for at least the last two. Incidentally, 27 Americans died of lightning strikes in 2010 alone. So consider that while Dachel condemns them damned vaccines.

Meanwhile, millions of lives have been protected from deadly diseases. If looking at those statistics, Anne Dachel wants to side with the viruses at the expense of the human species, she’s welcome to do it but the rest of us sane people are going to mock her mercilessly for her pathologically terrible decision-making skills. Her child is much, much more likely to suffer at the hands of the diseases vaccines can prevent than the vaccines themselves. And if she wants to take her chances by not wearing a seat belt because seat belts too have caused injury or even death, she can do that too.

And how does Dachel defend this idiotic view?

Catsoulis isn’t troubled by the fact that there’s no way to tell WHOSE CHILD IS VULNERABLE. It’s just the chance we all have to take—for the good of the herd I guess.

It makes me afraid that in the end, when “a link [is] proved definitively,” to use the author’s words, we’ll be told that what happened to our kids is justified by the claim that vaccines prevented lots of other kids from getting sick.

Dachel isn’t troubled by the fact that there’s no way to tell WHOSE SEAT BELT WILL FAIL. It’s just the chance we all have to take–for the good of the people who might be hurt if our bodies get thrown from our vehicles during a car crash. Dachel would have people believe it’s a choice between protecting your kid or protecting other people; it’s not. Vaccines protect BOTH the vaccinated and those around them. There’s no need to pick and choose priorities. It’s a fuckin’ win-win situation for everyone. But if she wants to risk everyone’s lives on this appeal to hypothetical future evidence that will confirm her presently unjustifiable speculations–if that’s what she wants to hang her hat on–then I’m going to have to cite my own hypothetical future evidence that she’s certifiably insane. So just remember my warnings when future Anne Dachel is up in the bell tower massacring dozens of people with a shotgun while eating babies, stealing Christmas, and using magic to resurrect Hitler.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

4 Responses to Anne Dachel okay with everyone else’s kids dying so long as her’s make it out

  1. Meg says:

    Your seat belt annology doest pass…because car safety (including seat belt safety) is consistently being studied and restudied, AND recalls are issued regularly not just for replacement parts/fixes you can bring your car in for, but for complete car recalls as well. With the Vaccine Program the way it is now, it’s not NEARLY as studied and restudied and improved over and over with each years newest model like cars are.

    There is also an INDEPENDANT review safety commission to test cars and retest cars and all of their components, whereas there is no such entity for Vaccines.

    For used cars and new cars, the independent safety reviews and testing information is widely available for the public at large to access to make their individual risk/benefits when choosing a safe car for their family. There is NO such entity for vaccines. We have to rely on the statements and any safety testing from the manufacturers themselves, and that information is NOT readily available to the public, and unfortunately not many doctors have easy acces either. Not only that, but the CDC/NIH rely on the drug manufacturers THEMSELVES to “police” themselves and report on any issues/etc they might have. The manufacturers themselves (according to the CDC/NIH directly) that they even do their own “follow ups/check ups” and just issue the CDC and NIH their OWN reports! NOT SO with the auto industry, could you imagine if that were the case in autos? It would never be accepted, however, with vaccines, it’s looked at by so many as “above their knowledge base” and that “doctors obviously know the best” and “why would any company or part of our government REALLY NOT do the proper testing and retesting and followup, because they certainly don’t want to make people I’ll, they don’t want a lawsuit/etc”..;it’s the “free market, if they hurt people they wouldn’t be able to stay in business, right?”…oh so wrong?

    Like I said, if it was like this for the Auto industry, or ANY OTHER industry for that matter, it would never be allowed by the public, plain and simple.

    The “anti-vaccine” plight I might add is far from what so many think it is. Sure, there are a small percentage of people in the extreme, like ALL issues, but the MAJORITY of this plight is FAR FROM “anti” vaccine, in fact, if this information was read NOT with prejudgement, but stepping back with an open mind, you might see, as I have thru my several years of researching all sides of this issue, that it’s ABOUT this simple idea:

    INDIVIDUAL Risk vs. INDIVIDUAL Benefit. Having the doctors have FULL ACCESS and EASY ACCESS to Complete and UP TO DATE batch information for each and every vaccine, so that they can then give their patients e COMPLETE and most up to date information so that the doctor along with the patient can make their own risk/benefit decision.

    And the argument that if everyone was “allowed” to choose NOT to vaccinate, their wouldn’t be so called “herd” immunity, that the Greater Good’s health would be jeopardized, is nonsense. It’s nonsense because if a patient’s own risk is greater than the benefit of the vaccine, then their is probably a very good reason for that decision, and more than likely it’s a health reason. So, had that patient been given that vaccine, and NOT been able to process the vaccine properly, sure there is risk for side effects/injury/perm. Damage/death BUT more likely than that, is that the patient might not even fully process the vaccine correctly so there wouldn’t even be immunity to the disease the vaccine was to prevent in the first place. AND, even if this patient did NOT have any side effects or injury/etc, then they are living their lives thinking they HAVE immunity but their bodies may not have processed it correctly to gin immunity.,,.so, the “herd” is No Better off in this situation either.

    So, from the research I have done over several years, and I started on the opposite side of the “anti-vaxers” trust me, it was HARD TO GET ME to take a step back too, but after awhile I could no longer feel right about calling it the “anti vaxers” or “anti-vaccine”/etc…because it is NOT…

    Simply said is that everyone knows that there will be random events in every aspect of life, and vaccines are no different. HOWEVER, there is such a LACK of full, up to date, safety information and a LACK OF INDEPENDENT STUDY and review, that it’s getting harder and harder to rack all of these adverse events up to “the random” events that should be occurring….

    To use your seat belt annology, what would the auto industry do if over the past 5-10 years or so there were increasing amounts of seat belts that were all of a sudden not working correctly, whether or not they ended up in an accident or not, they were reports of seat belt failures more and more each year…

    ..would they blame it on the users, that people must not be using them correctly because they hear of all of these “failures” so they arent using them properly , or more injuries are being caused because people fear they will not work so they just won’t use them anymore?..NO, because it has nothing to do with those who choose not to use them, it has to do with the ones that DO USE THEM and the seat belts fail….

    …would the auto industry chalk it up to more cars produced so therefore more failures would be expected? NO, because regardless of how many cars are produced, the goal should NEVER BE (and WOULD NEVER BE in the auto industry because of the involvement of the independent reviewing boards) to LESSEN the seat belt failures, it should be and will always be to ERRADICATE all seat belt failures, period…

    So, the plight of what you call “anti vaccine” is really (what I believe anyone who would take the time to look at this INDEPENDENTLY would also feel) is the fight for an INDEPENDENT initial safety testing as well as continuous reviews and followup testing…AND FULL and COMPLETE and EASILY accessible information about ALL TESTING, all known issues, all information..to the public as well as all medical staff, AND that the issue that we ALL know, that yes, random events can happen..BUT that the realization of far too many “random” events are happening for them to still be considered RANDOM..

    So, the fight is for INDEPENDENT studies to try to figure out IF there IS a common issue between those who have issues/events following a vaccine(s)…as well as following up with testing of those who did not have any particular side effect/injury/etc to study how effective each vaccine really is…how many people really DID react to the vaccine, not process it correctly but it was either minor physically that it wasn’t noticed or wasn’t connected to the vaccine, or if it was noticeable or even severe but never connected to the vaccine,,these people are waking around with ZERO immunity if their bodies never processed the vaccine correctly….

    So for those who DO believe in “herd immunity” aren’t YOU then concerned about how many people are walking around WITHOUT the immunity that everyone thinks they have?

    Basically, INDEPENDENT study and followup studies are needed. Can you name ANY other industry serving thr public besides the pharmaceutical industry that does NOT HAVE any sort of independent review entity? Because its NOT ACCEPTED by the public, and neither should this…REGARDLESS of what “side” of the issue you are on, it would benefit EVERYONE to have an independent entity here, besides it would then REALLY “proove” the point of those who still claim so many are “anti vaccine”, so what’s the big deal then, right?

    So, let’s DO these “cost analysis’s” and all of that kind of research..let’s see! LET’S finally do the INDEPENDENT COMPARISON between FULLY UNvaccinated kids and vaccinated kids and all possibilities inbetween…and the issue of it being unethical to have kids NOT BE vaccinated to complete this study is ludicrous because right now, there are PLENTY of kids who have never been vaccinated who would be able to give their medical records and be studied so that no newborn/baby/child would have to be asked to NEVER vaccinate in order to be studied…and NO there has never been a fully independent study done like this…

    Anyway, sorry it was such a long post, I didn’t mean it to be, i just get passionate about this because I have put so much personal energy into this research/etc (sure its 330am so my grammar and such is sooooo wrong but hopefully I have tried to explain my points to the fullest without sounding extreme or radical or ignorant, because I am certainly none of those, lol!)….

    I just think that NO HARM can come of an independent entity to study/review/and restudied/review/followup/etc the vaccine (and prescription drug industry as a whole) industry…and that SO MUCH HARM can be done by NOT having one, by continuing to keep this anti/pro vaccine divide is HARMFUL because by continuing to have this divide that is actually STALLING progress in demanding FULL STUDIES and FULL ACCESS TO COMPLETE independent information, which we have and for which we demand for all other industries that serve us, the public…..

    And NO HARM can come of making sure by independent study and followup that all vaccines are being processed correctly, not just by lack of side effects/injuries/etc, BUT BY independent followup studying of post vaccine immunity…

    ..and NO HARM can come of then further studying of all who DID Have side effects/injuries/worse following a vaccine, regardless IF the vaccine was the cause of that event or NOT, because then we could study WHY such an event happened, and maybe find a way to either test for that reason prior to that specific vaccine(s) so that person with whatever issue that reacted with the vaccine to cause that side effect/injury/etc, to help prevent others with similar issues DO NOT take that vaccine…

    ..by figuring out who/what genes/issues/etc might react with a vaccine(s), it’s NOT TO THEN say ..ok, just stop all vaccines, it’s the opposite (which is why I know this is NOT “anti” vaccine) …because its then to find out a way TO BE ABLE TO THEN MAKE A SAFE VERSION FOR EVERYONE, or mabe just a separate version for the who can not, for whatever discovered reason can not take the other one…

    So, if “herd” immunity is what you are after/believe in, then my-o-my why WOULDN’T you desire the same thing? Why wouldn’t you want to know who isn’t processing the vaccine properly regardless if injury or not, and then for those people , instead of walking around either injured or not, but NOT IMMUNE following a vaccination, so that a vaccine that those people COULD TAKE that their bodies WOULD BE able to process, so there WOULD BE HIGHER immunity stats?

    And, yes, of course, there can never be 100% of people 100% safe from 100% of vaccines 100% of the time, and there will always be random and RARE events/injuries/deaths/etc…but that’s the key, they will be RANDOM and RARE…

    Right now, it’s FAR FROM RANDOM and FAR FROM RARE…

  2. Meg says:

    Your seat belt annology doest pass…because car safety (including seat belt safety) is consistently being studied and restudied, AND recalls are issued regularly not just for replacement parts/fixes you can bring your car in for, but for complete car recalls as well. With the Vaccine Program the way it is now, it’s not NEARLY as studied and restudied and improved over and over with each years newest model like cars are.

    There is also an INDEPENDANT review safety commission to test cars and retest cars and all of their components, whereas there is no such entity for Vaccines.

    For used cars and new cars, the independent safety reviews and testing information is widely available for the public at large to access to make their individual risk/benefits when choosing a safe car for their family. There is NO such entity for vaccines. We have to rely on the statements and any safety testing from the manufacturers themselves, and that information is NOT readily available to the public, and unfortunately not many doctors have easy acces either.  Not only that, but the CDC/NIH rely on the drug manufacturers THEMSELVES to “police” themselves and report on any issues/etc they might have. The manufacturers themselves (according to the CDC/NIH directly) that they even do their own “follow ups/check ups” and just issue the CDC and NIH their OWN reports! NOT SO with the auto industry, could you imagine if that were the case in autos? It would never be accepted, however, with vaccines, it’s looked at by so many as “above their knowledge base” and that “doctors obviously know the best” and “why would any company or part of our government REALLY NOT do the proper testing and retesting and followup, because they certainly don’t want to make people I’ll, they don’t want a lawsuit/etc”..;it’s the “free market, if they hurt people they wouldn’t be able to stay in business, right?”…oh so wrong?

    Like I said, if it was like this for the Auto industry, or ANY OTHER industry for that matter, it would never be allowed by the public, plain and simple.

    The “anti-vaccine” plight I might add is far from what so many think it is. Sure, there are a small percentage of people in the extreme, like ALL issues, but the MAJORITY of this plight is FAR FROM “anti” vaccine, in fact, if this information was read NOT with prejudgement, but stepping back with an open mind, you might see, as I have thru my several years of researching all sides of this issue, that it’s ABOUT this simple idea:

    INDIVIDUAL Risk vs. INDIVIDUAL Benefit. Having the doctors have FULL ACCESS and EASY ACCESS to Complete and UP TO DATE batch information for each and every vaccine, so that they can then give their patients e COMPLETE and most up to date information so that the doctor along with the patient can make their own risk/benefit decision.

    And the argument that if everyone was “allowed” to choose NOT to vaccinate, their wouldn’t be so called “herd” immunity, that the Greater Good’s health would be jeopardized, is nonsense.  It’s nonsense because if a patient’s own risk is greater than the benefit of the vaccine, then their is probably a very good reason for that decision, and more than likely it’s a health reason. So, had that patient been given that vaccine, and NOT been able to process the vaccine properly, sure there is risk for side effects/injury/perm. Damage/death BUT more likely than that, is that the patient might not even fully process the vaccine correctly so there wouldn’t even be immunity to the disease the vaccine was to prevent in the first place. AND, even if this patient did NOT have any side effects or injury/etc, then they are living their lives thinking they HAVE immunity but their bodies may not have processed it correctly to gin immunity.,,.so, the “herd” is No Better off in this situation either.

    So, from the research I have done over several years, and I started on the opposite side of the “anti-vaxers” trust me, it was HARD TO GET ME to take a step back too, but after awhile I could no longer feel right about calling it the “anti vaxers” or “anti-vaccine”/etc…because it is NOT…

    Simply said is that everyone knows that there will be random events in every aspect of life, and vaccines are no different.  HOWEVER, there is such a LACK of full, up to date, safety information and a LACK OF INDEPENDENT STUDY and review, that it’s getting harder and harder to rack all of these adverse events up to “the random” events that should be occurring….

    To use your seat belt annology, what would the auto industry do if over the past 5-10 years or so there were increasing amounts of seat belts that were all of a sudden not working correctly, whether or not they ended up in an accident or not, they were reports of seat belt failures more and more each year…

    ..would they blame it on the users, that people must not be using them correctly because they hear of all of these “failures” so they arent using them properly , or more injuries are being caused because people fear they will not work so they just won’t use them anymore?..NO, because it has nothing to do with those who choose not to use them, it has to do with the ones that DO USE THEM and the seat belts fail….

    …would the auto industry chalk it up to more cars produced so therefore more failures would be expected?  NO, because regardless of how many cars are produced, the goal should NEVER BE (and WOULD NEVER BE in the auto industry because of the involvement of the independent reviewing boards) to LESSEN the seat belt failures, it should be and will always be to ERRADICATE all seat belt failures, period…

    So, the plight of what you call “anti vaccine” is really (what I believe anyone who would take the time to look at this INDEPENDENTLY would also feel) is the fight for an INDEPENDENT initial safety testing as well as continuous reviews and followup testing…AND FULL and COMPLETE and EASILY accessible information about ALL TESTING, all known issues, all information..to the public as well as all medical staff, AND that the issue that we ALL know, that yes, random events can happen..BUT that the realization of far too many “random” events are happening for them to still be considered RANDOM..

    So, the fight is for INDEPENDENT studies to try to figure out IF there IS a common issue between those who have issues/events following a vaccine(s)…as well as following up with testing of those who did not have any particular side effect/injury/etc to study how effective each vaccine really is…how many people really DID react to the vaccine, not process it correctly but it was either minor physically that it wasn’t noticed or wasn’t connected to the vaccine, or if it was noticeable or even severe but never connected to the vaccine,,these people are waking around with ZERO immunity if their bodies never processed the vaccine correctly….

    So for those who DO believe in “herd immunity” aren’t YOU then concerned about how many people are walking around WITHOUT the immunity that everyone thinks they have?

    Basically, INDEPENDENT study and followup studies are needed. Can you name ANY other industry serving thr public besides the pharmaceutical industry that does NOT HAVE any sort of independent review entity? Because its NOT ACCEPTED by the public, and neither should this…REGARDLESS of what “side” of the issue you are on, it would benefit EVERYONE to have an independent entity here, besides it would then REALLY “proove” the point of those who still claim so many are “anti vaccine”, so what’s the big deal then, right?

    So, let’s DO these “cost analysis’s” and all of that kind of research..let’s see! LET’S finally do the INDEPENDENT COMPARISON between FULLY UNvaccinated kids and vaccinated kids and all possibilities inbetween…and the issue of it being unethical to have kids NOT BE vaccinated to complete this study is ludicrous because right now, there are PLENTY of kids who have never been vaccinated who would be able to give their medical records and be studied so that no newborn/baby/child would have to be asked to NEVER vaccinate in order to be studied…and NO there has never been a fully independent study done like this…

    Anyway, sorry it was such a long post, I didn’t mean it to be, i just get passionate about this because I have put so much personal energy into this research/etc (sure its 330am so my grammar and such is sooooo wrong but hopefully I have tried to explain my points to the fullest without sounding extreme or radical or ignorant, because I am certainly none of those, lol!)….

    I just think that NO HARM can come of an independent entity to study/review/and restudied/review/followup/etc the vaccine (and prescription drug industry as a whole) industry…and that SO MUCH HARM can be done by NOT having one, by continuing to keep this anti/pro vaccine divide is HARMFUL because by continuing to have this divide that is actually STALLING progress in demanding FULL STUDIES and FULL ACCESS TO COMPLETE independent information, which we have and for which we demand for all other industries that serve us, the public…..

    And NO HARM can come of making sure by independent study and followup that all vaccines are being processed correctly, not just by lack of side effects/injuries/etc, BUT BY independent followup studying of post vaccine immunity…

    ..and NO HARM can come of then further studying of all who DID Have side effects/injuries/worse following a vaccine, regardless IF the vaccine was the cause of that event or NOT, because then we could study WHY such an event happened, and maybe find a way to either test for that reason prior to that specific vaccine(s) so that person with whatever issue that reacted with the vaccine to cause that side effect/injury/etc, to help prevent others with similar issues DO NOT take that vaccine…

    ..by figuring out who/what genes/issues/etc might react with a vaccine(s), it’s NOT TO THEN say ..ok, just stop all vaccines, it’s the opposite (which is why I know this is NOT “anti” vaccine) …because its then to find out a way TO BE ABLE TO THEN MAKE A SAFE VERSION FOR EVERYONE, or mabe just a separate version for the who can not, for whatever discovered reason can not take the other one…

    So, if “herd” immunity is what you are after/believe in, then my-o-my why WOULDN’T you desire the same thing? Why wouldn’t you want to know who isn’t processing the vaccine properly regardless if injury or not, and then for those people , instead of walking around either injured or not, but NOT IMMUNE following a vaccination, so that a vaccine that those people COULD TAKE that their bodies WOULD BE able to process, so there WOULD BE HIGHER immunity stats?

    And, yes, of course, there can never be 100% of people 100% safe from 100% of vaccines 100% of the time, and there will always be random and RARE  events/injuries/deaths/etc…but that’s the key, they will be RANDOM and RARE…

    Right now, it’s FAR FROM RANDOM and FAR FROM RARE…

  3. Andrew says:

    Meg,

    Ever notice that the anti-vaccine (oops, I mean the “someday there will be a vaccine I’m not against – I swear!!!”) web sites censor opposing views, while the pro-healthy-children sites like this one, allow people to make critical comments that are actually longer than the original post? It’s weird. If I didn’t know better, I’d have to conclude that one side is open to criticism and one side is terrified of it.

  4. Reuben says:

    Is this Meg’s blog? Meg, I’d like to congratulate you on your tirade. You’ll make a great filibustering Senator one day. By “independent”, you mean “non-scientific”, as any group who studies vaccines is independent but “tainted” in the anti-vax circles because there are scientists among them.

    So go ahead and have your non-scientific reviews. Let me know how that works out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: