The Depression Cure: The 6-Step Program to Beat Depression without Drugs In the past decade, depression rates have skyrocketed, and one in four Americ
 |
| 12 Step Programs Depression And Anxiety by Antonia |
Inspired by the extraordinary resilience of aboriginal groups like the Kaluli of Papua New Guinea, Dr. Ilardi prescribes an easy-to-follow, clinically proven program that harks back to what our bodies were originally made for and what they continue to need. The Depression Cure program has already delivered dramatic results, helping even those who have failed to respond to traditional medications.
 |
| ... Steps Program To Beat Depression Now (The Depression And Anxiety Self |
 |
| Amazon.com: The Depression Cure: The 6-step Program to Beat Depression ... |
 |
| The Anxiety Cure: An Eight-Step Program for Getting Well: Robert L ... |
 |
| Pictures of Depression Treatment Steps |
Source : http://imentalhealth.net/mental-health-disorders/depression/the-depression-cure-the-6-step-program-to-beat-depression-without-drugs
Related video about The Depression Cure: The 6-Step Program to Beat Depression without Drugs
Discovery Science Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Discovery Science Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation This episode explores how Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation can be a one-step program that will change the future of handling addiction The Depression Cure: The 6-Step Program to Beat Depression without Drugs
Commonly question about The Depression Cure: The 6-Step Program to Beat Depression without Drugs
Question :
Why?
Peter Breggin, Psychiatry and the Holocaust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQZdUmxG1Es
Harding:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb00/schizophrenia.aspx
Ilardi and his research of the Kaluli tribe:
http://www.amazon.com/Depression-Cure-6-Step-Program-without/dp/0738213136
Exporting DSM to "developing" countries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9WMhHJhkM
Whitaker, author of Mad in America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Dx_uuyXYk&feature=related
Katie Couric interview with Prof. of Psychiatric Department of Harvard (second video down):
http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/120
And,
- There is no evidence that antidepressants reduce the risk of suicide or suicide attempts in comparison with a placebo in clinical trials (Kahn et al. 2000).
- In fact, rates have actually increased in some age groups and in some countries despite increased antidepressant prescribing (Moncrieff & Kirsch 2006), and when antidepressant trials have been re-analyzed to compensate for erroneous methodologies, the SSRIs have consistently revealed a risk of suicide (completed or attempted) of between two to four times higher than placebo (Jackson 2005).
- Sharply rising levels of antidepressant prescribing since the 1990s have been accompanied by increased prevalence of depressive episodes (Patten 2004) and by rising levels of sickness absence for depression (Moncrieff & Pomerleau 2000).
- Longitudinal follow-up studies (which study the effects of antidepresants over the long term not just the 6-8 week periods the clinical trials look at) show very poor outcomes for people treated for depression both in the hospital and in the community, and the overall prevalence of depression is rising despite increased use of antidepressants (Moncrieff & Kirsch, 2006).
- Over the long-term, people prescribed antidepressants have a worse outcome than those not prescribed them, even after baseline severity had been taken into account (Brugha TS et al, 1992; Ronalds C et al., 1997). No comparable studies exist that show a better outcome in people prescribed antidepressants.
Studies are also showing that the disease model actually increases instead of decreases stigma of mental illnesses.
If you think this is all scare tactics think again. In Switzerland, it is now legal for someone to assist the suicide of someone with a "chronic" mental illness. Who gets to decide they are a candidate for the "Dignitas" euthenasia clinic? A psychiatrist. How? Through unscientific judgment. Through talking. Legal euthenasia of suicidal people as long as they have supposed "defects" says something about a society. It send the message that people who want to die are right and that people with the same things who choose life are "just too stupid to know their lives are worthless.".
I have a question. If you work in the mental health industry and promote this philosophy...how do you look in the mirror?
It would be nice if people actually argued with the facts I have presented. I ve noticed that assuming things about my history, wishing mental illness on my loved ones, or calling me a Scientologist (which I am not) is usually all anyone can muster after being presented with these facts. Kind of bizarre.
Why would anyone prescribe to the philosophy of biological psychiatry?
People that are against biological psychiatry do not deny that people suffer or that they can hallucinate or have delusions. What they deny is that these things are the result of genetic and biological defects.Why?
Peter Breggin, Psychiatry and the Holocaust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQZdUmxG1Es
Harding:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb00/schizophrenia.aspx
Ilardi and his research of the Kaluli tribe:
http://www.amazon.com/Depression-Cure-6-Step-Program-without/dp/0738213136
Exporting DSM to "developing" countries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9WMhHJhkM
Whitaker, author of Mad in America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Dx_uuyXYk&feature=related
Katie Couric interview with Prof. of Psychiatric Department of Harvard (second video down):
http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/120
And,
- There is no evidence that antidepressants reduce the risk of suicide or suicide attempts in comparison with a placebo in clinical trials (Kahn et al. 2000).
- In fact, rates have actually increased in some age groups and in some countries despite increased antidepressant prescribing (Moncrieff & Kirsch 2006), and when antidepressant trials have been re-analyzed to compensate for erroneous methodologies, the SSRIs have consistently revealed a risk of suicide (completed or attempted) of between two to four times higher than placebo (Jackson 2005).
- Sharply rising levels of antidepressant prescribing since the 1990s have been accompanied by increased prevalence of depressive episodes (Patten 2004) and by rising levels of sickness absence for depression (Moncrieff & Pomerleau 2000).
- Longitudinal follow-up studies (which study the effects of antidepresants over the long term not just the 6-8 week periods the clinical trials look at) show very poor outcomes for people treated for depression both in the hospital and in the community, and the overall prevalence of depression is rising despite increased use of antidepressants (Moncrieff & Kirsch, 2006).
- Over the long-term, people prescribed antidepressants have a worse outcome than those not prescribed them, even after baseline severity had been taken into account (Brugha TS et al, 1992; Ronalds C et al., 1997). No comparable studies exist that show a better outcome in people prescribed antidepressants.
Studies are also showing that the disease model actually increases instead of decreases stigma of mental illnesses.
If you think this is all scare tactics think again. In Switzerland, it is now legal for someone to assist the suicide of someone with a "chronic" mental illness. Who gets to decide they are a candidate for the "Dignitas" euthenasia clinic? A psychiatrist. How? Through unscientific judgment. Through talking. Legal euthenasia of suicidal people as long as they have supposed "defects" says something about a society. It send the message that people who want to die are right and that people with the same things who choose life are "just too stupid to know their lives are worthless.".
I have a question. If you work in the mental health industry and promote this philosophy...how do you look in the mirror?
It would be nice if people actually argued with the facts I have presented. I ve noticed that assuming things about my history, wishing mental illness on my loved ones, or calling me a Scientologist (which I am not) is usually all anyone can muster after being presented with these facts. Kind of bizarre.
Answer :
Almost all the research I know of shows that therapy in addition to medication produces a better and longer term outcome than medication alone. Although I tend to advocate therapy more than medication, which might be self-serving since I am a psychologist, the fact is that there are benefits to medication in the short term. Medication interrupts and calms the mind so that it becomes more accepting of therapeutic suggestions.
I have also noticed that most of your research concerns the treatment of depression. There are many other forms of mental illness, however. Some forms of schizophrenia, psychosis, and bipolar disorder do not appear to be treatable without medication. I have seen medication work wonders with some people. I do not believe therre is a one-treatment cure all for everyone and one cannot make blanket statements.
It has also been found, by the way, that there are biological changes in the brain with therapy as well as with medication. Therapy tends to take longer for these changes to happen. However, my question is, does that make therapy a biological treatment? Such changes can occur through everyday life. I guess that makes living biological - who would have thought that? Certain concepts are inescapable and I guess it really depends on where you want to place emphasis. Of course, health insurance companies love their pals in the pharmaceutical industry and right now they are pushing the biological pill approach to mental health treatment because just talking seems crazy and expensive, and they are concerned with people s best interests, right? There form of treatment that society encourages usually distills to economics.
Almost all the research I know of shows that therapy in addition to medication produces a better and longer term outcome than medication alone. Although I tend to advocate therapy more than medication, which might be self-serving since I am a psychologist, the fact is that there are benefits to medication in the short term. Medication interrupts and calms the mind so that it becomes more accepting of therapeutic suggestions.
I have also noticed that most of your research concerns the treatment of depression. There are many other forms of mental illness, however. Some forms of schizophrenia, psychosis, and bipolar disorder do not appear to be treatable without medication. I have seen medication work wonders with some people. I do not believe therre is a one-treatment cure all for everyone and one cannot make blanket statements.
It has also been found, by the way, that there are biological changes in the brain with therapy as well as with medication. Therapy tends to take longer for these changes to happen. However, my question is, does that make therapy a biological treatment? Such changes can occur through everyday life. I guess that makes living biological - who would have thought that? Certain concepts are inescapable and I guess it really depends on where you want to place emphasis. Of course, health insurance companies love their pals in the pharmaceutical industry and right now they are pushing the biological pill approach to mental health treatment because just talking seems crazy and expensive, and they are concerned with people s best interests, right? There form of treatment that society encourages usually distills to economics.
Question :
Why?
Peter Breggin, Psychiatry and the Holocaust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQZdUmxG1Es
Harding:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb00/schizophrenia.aspx
Ilardi and his research of the Kaluli tribe:
http://www.amazon.com/Depression-Cure-6-Step-Program-without/dp/0738213136
Exporting DSM to "developing" countries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9WMhHJhkM
Whitaker, author of Mad in America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Dx_uuyXYk&feature=related
Katie Couric interview with Prof. of Psychiatric Department of Harvard (second video down):
http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/120
And,
- There is no evidence that antidepressants reduce the risk of suicide or suicide attempts in comparison with a placebo in clinical trials (Kahn et al. 2000).
- In fact, rates have actually increased in some age groups and in some countries despite increased antidepressant prescribing (Moncrieff & Kirsch 2006), and when antidepressant trials have been re-analyzed to compensate for erroneous methodologies, the SSRIs have consistently revealed a risk of suicide (completed or attempted) of between two to four times higher than placebo (Jackson 2005).
- Sharply rising levels of antidepressant prescribing since the 1990s have been accompanied by increased prevalence of depressive episodes (Patten 2004) and by rising levels of sickness absence for depression (Moncrieff & Pomerleau 2000).
- Longitudinal follow-up studies (which study the effects of antidepresants over the long term not just the 6-8 week periods the clinical trials look at) show very poor outcomes for people treated for depression both in the hospital and in the community, and the overall prevalence of depression is rising despite increased use of antidepressants (Moncrieff & Kirsch, 2006).
- Over the long-term, people prescribed antidepressants have a worse outcome than those not prescribed them, even after baseline severity had been taken into account (Brugha TS et al, 1992; Ronalds C et al., 1997). No comparable studies exist that show a better outcome in people prescribed antidepressants.
If you think this is all scare tactics think again. In Switzerland, it is now legal for someone to assist the suicide of someone with a "chronic" mental illness. Who has to decide they are a candidate for the euthenasia? A psychiatrist. How? Through unscientific judgment. Talking. Legal euthenasia of suicidal people as long as they have supposed "defects" says something about a society. It send the message that people who want to die are right and that people with the same things who choose life are "just too stupid to know their lives are worthless.".
I have a question. If you work in the mental health industry and blindly follow this philosophy...how to you look in the mirror?
It would nice if people actually argued with the facts I have presented. I ve noticed that assuming things about my history, wishing mental illness on my loved ones, or calling me a Scientologist (which I am not) is usually all anyone can muster after being presented with these facts. Kind of bizarre.
Why would any prescribe to the biological psychiatry philosophy?
People that are against biological psychiatry do not deny that people suffer or that they can hallucinate or have delusions. What they do deny is that these thing are the result of genetic and biological defects.Why?
Peter Breggin, Psychiatry and the Holocaust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQZdUmxG1Es
Harding:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb00/schizophrenia.aspx
Ilardi and his research of the Kaluli tribe:
http://www.amazon.com/Depression-Cure-6-Step-Program-without/dp/0738213136
Exporting DSM to "developing" countries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9WMhHJhkM
Whitaker, author of Mad in America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Dx_uuyXYk&feature=related
Katie Couric interview with Prof. of Psychiatric Department of Harvard (second video down):
http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/120
And,
- There is no evidence that antidepressants reduce the risk of suicide or suicide attempts in comparison with a placebo in clinical trials (Kahn et al. 2000).
- In fact, rates have actually increased in some age groups and in some countries despite increased antidepressant prescribing (Moncrieff & Kirsch 2006), and when antidepressant trials have been re-analyzed to compensate for erroneous methodologies, the SSRIs have consistently revealed a risk of suicide (completed or attempted) of between two to four times higher than placebo (Jackson 2005).
- Sharply rising levels of antidepressant prescribing since the 1990s have been accompanied by increased prevalence of depressive episodes (Patten 2004) and by rising levels of sickness absence for depression (Moncrieff & Pomerleau 2000).
- Longitudinal follow-up studies (which study the effects of antidepresants over the long term not just the 6-8 week periods the clinical trials look at) show very poor outcomes for people treated for depression both in the hospital and in the community, and the overall prevalence of depression is rising despite increased use of antidepressants (Moncrieff & Kirsch, 2006).
- Over the long-term, people prescribed antidepressants have a worse outcome than those not prescribed them, even after baseline severity had been taken into account (Brugha TS et al, 1992; Ronalds C et al., 1997). No comparable studies exist that show a better outcome in people prescribed antidepressants.
If you think this is all scare tactics think again. In Switzerland, it is now legal for someone to assist the suicide of someone with a "chronic" mental illness. Who has to decide they are a candidate for the euthenasia? A psychiatrist. How? Through unscientific judgment. Talking. Legal euthenasia of suicidal people as long as they have supposed "defects" says something about a society. It send the message that people who want to die are right and that people with the same things who choose life are "just too stupid to know their lives are worthless.".
I have a question. If you work in the mental health industry and blindly follow this philosophy...how to you look in the mirror?
It would nice if people actually argued with the facts I have presented. I ve noticed that assuming things about my history, wishing mental illness on my loved ones, or calling me a Scientologist (which I am not) is usually all anyone can muster after being presented with these facts. Kind of bizarre.
Answer :
so if i understand you correctly, you are saying that biological causes for psychological problems are not the only explanation. and, you are questioning why it is that people believe in only biological causes + solutions, when clearly there is evidence against biological solutions.
first of all let me just make it clear that drugs work faster than social or therapeutic means. it s just.. a fact. whether or not they work towards the RIGHT PURPOSE, to reduce depression or reduce suicidal tendencies or whatever is a different matter. resolving mental issues takes so much TIME and effort with backsliding, regression, and much difficulty. if you have the money and time to spare, go ahead. most people have circumstances in their lives that require their attention and time, and possibly are the stressors causing/exacerbating their situations. i am not saying you are wrong, but think about this:
this applies to education and basically anything on a mass scale:
WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES, TIME, PEOPLE, MONEY to give every person what they truly need. it s a fact of life. schools are mass scale, nobody ever gets as good of an education as they should. however, children are resilient, and some try hard, and others are just smart.
same with testing of anything- SATS, GREs, whatever. none of those test as well as they should, but how else would you be able to handle categorization on such a big scale? it s the best we can do.
and how are you going to diagnose mental illness if you don t like to use biological/scientific methods? that seems a little hypocritical because many diagnoses for mental disorders document some sort of biological discrepancy.
your euthanasia argument doesn t really make sense to me. if you don t like biological means, why are you arguing against "unscientific judgment of talking?" what else is there? how else would someone communicate to a person who is analyzing their situation other than biological means or talking? the only means left are guessing and nonverbal communication, which we know very little about even in "normal" human beings and even less in "abnormal" or suicidal people.
your arguments are based on ideal conditions, but you really have to realize that this world is not ideal. we have limitations. i am not disagreeing with you because obviously some mental diseases do not have a single biological sign, i am just saying that its much harder to maintain an extreme (all bio or all non-bio) rather than try a mix and help as many people as we can. it just so happens that biological means are more "scientific" at this point, or at least people feel more confident in it. but, try old school conservatives, they dont believe in drugs or mental disease or western science, just man up and get over it is their approach. and how many people are helped by that approach? a few maybe learn to get over it, but our goal is to HELP, not to make people GET OVER things. and so we try to give them biological methods, which by the way with your mention of placebo has a psychological effect even if it doesn t have a biological one.
so if i understand you correctly, you are saying that biological causes for psychological problems are not the only explanation. and, you are questioning why it is that people believe in only biological causes + solutions, when clearly there is evidence against biological solutions.
first of all let me just make it clear that drugs work faster than social or therapeutic means. it s just.. a fact. whether or not they work towards the RIGHT PURPOSE, to reduce depression or reduce suicidal tendencies or whatever is a different matter. resolving mental issues takes so much TIME and effort with backsliding, regression, and much difficulty. if you have the money and time to spare, go ahead. most people have circumstances in their lives that require their attention and time, and possibly are the stressors causing/exacerbating their situations. i am not saying you are wrong, but think about this:
this applies to education and basically anything on a mass scale:
WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES, TIME, PEOPLE, MONEY to give every person what they truly need. it s a fact of life. schools are mass scale, nobody ever gets as good of an education as they should. however, children are resilient, and some try hard, and others are just smart.
same with testing of anything- SATS, GREs, whatever. none of those test as well as they should, but how else would you be able to handle categorization on such a big scale? it s the best we can do.
and how are you going to diagnose mental illness if you don t like to use biological/scientific methods? that seems a little hypocritical because many diagnoses for mental disorders document some sort of biological discrepancy.
your euthanasia argument doesn t really make sense to me. if you don t like biological means, why are you arguing against "unscientific judgment of talking?" what else is there? how else would someone communicate to a person who is analyzing their situation other than biological means or talking? the only means left are guessing and nonverbal communication, which we know very little about even in "normal" human beings and even less in "abnormal" or suicidal people.
your arguments are based on ideal conditions, but you really have to realize that this world is not ideal. we have limitations. i am not disagreeing with you because obviously some mental diseases do not have a single biological sign, i am just saying that its much harder to maintain an extreme (all bio or all non-bio) rather than try a mix and help as many people as we can. it just so happens that biological means are more "scientific" at this point, or at least people feel more confident in it. but, try old school conservatives, they dont believe in drugs or mental disease or western science, just man up and get over it is their approach. and how many people are helped by that approach? a few maybe learn to get over it, but our goal is to HELP, not to make people GET OVER things. and so we try to give them biological methods, which by the way with your mention of placebo has a psychological effect even if it doesn t have a biological one.
Question :
Why?
Peter Breggin, Psychiatry and the Holocaust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQZdUmxG1Es
Harding:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb00/schizophrenia.aspx
Ilardi and his research of the Kaluli tribe:
http://www.amazon.com/Depression-Cure-6-Step-Program-without/dp/0738213136
Exporting DSM to "developing" countries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9WMhHJhkM
Whitaker, author of Mad in America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Dx_uuyXYk&feature=related
Katie Couric interview with Prof. of Psychiatric Department of Harvard (second video down):
http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/120
And,
- There is no evidence that antidepressants reduce the risk of suicide or suicide attempts in comparison with a placebo in clinical trials (Kahn et al. 2000).
- In fact, rates have actually increased in some age groups and in some countries despite increased antidepressant prescribing (Moncrieff & Kirsch 2006), and when antidepressant trials have been re-analyzed to compensate for erroneous methodologies, the SSRIs have consistently revealed a risk of suicide (completed or attempted) of between two to four times higher than placebo (Jackson 2005).
- Sharply rising levels of antidepressant prescribing since the 1990s have been accompanied by increased prevalence of depressive episodes (Patten 2004) and by rising levels of sickness absence for depression (Moncrieff & Pomerleau 2000).
- Longitudinal follow-up studies (which study the effects of antidepresants over the long term not just the 6-8 week periods the clinical trials look at) show very poor outcomes for people treated for depression both in the hospital and in the community, and the overall prevalence of depression is rising despite increased use of antidepressants (Moncrieff & Kirsch, 2006).
- Over the long-term, people prescribed antidepressants have a worse outcome than those not prescribed them, even after baseline severity had been taken into account (Brugha TS et al, 1992; Ronalds C et al., 1997). No comparable studies exist that show a better outcome in people prescribed antidepressants.
If you think this is all scare tactics think again. In Switzerland, it is now legal for someone to assist the suicide of someone with a "chronic" mental illness. Who gets to decide they are a candidate for the "Dignitas" euthenasia clinic? A psychiatrist. How? Through unscientific judgment. Through talking. Legal euthenasia of suicidal people as long as they have supposed "defects" says something about a society. It send the message that people who want to die are right and that people with the same things who choose life are "just too stupid to know their lives are worthless.".
I have a question. If you work in the mental health industry and blindly follow this philosophy...how do you look in the mirror?
It would nice if people actually argued with the facts I have presented. I ve noticed that assuming things about my history, wishing mental illness on my loved ones, or calling me a Scientologist (which I am not) is usually all anyone can muster after being presented with these facts. Kind of bizarre.
Why would anyone prescribe to the biological psychiatry philosophy?
People that are against biological psychiatry do not deny that people suffer or that they can hallucinate or have delusions. What they do deny is that these thing are the result of genetic and biological defects.Why?
Peter Breggin, Psychiatry and the Holocaust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQZdUmxG1Es
Harding:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb00/schizophrenia.aspx
Ilardi and his research of the Kaluli tribe:
http://www.amazon.com/Depression-Cure-6-Step-Program-without/dp/0738213136
Exporting DSM to "developing" countries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9WMhHJhkM
Whitaker, author of Mad in America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Dx_uuyXYk&feature=related
Katie Couric interview with Prof. of Psychiatric Department of Harvard (second video down):
http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/120
And,
- There is no evidence that antidepressants reduce the risk of suicide or suicide attempts in comparison with a placebo in clinical trials (Kahn et al. 2000).
- In fact, rates have actually increased in some age groups and in some countries despite increased antidepressant prescribing (Moncrieff & Kirsch 2006), and when antidepressant trials have been re-analyzed to compensate for erroneous methodologies, the SSRIs have consistently revealed a risk of suicide (completed or attempted) of between two to four times higher than placebo (Jackson 2005).
- Sharply rising levels of antidepressant prescribing since the 1990s have been accompanied by increased prevalence of depressive episodes (Patten 2004) and by rising levels of sickness absence for depression (Moncrieff & Pomerleau 2000).
- Longitudinal follow-up studies (which study the effects of antidepresants over the long term not just the 6-8 week periods the clinical trials look at) show very poor outcomes for people treated for depression both in the hospital and in the community, and the overall prevalence of depression is rising despite increased use of antidepressants (Moncrieff & Kirsch, 2006).
- Over the long-term, people prescribed antidepressants have a worse outcome than those not prescribed them, even after baseline severity had been taken into account (Brugha TS et al, 1992; Ronalds C et al., 1997). No comparable studies exist that show a better outcome in people prescribed antidepressants.
If you think this is all scare tactics think again. In Switzerland, it is now legal for someone to assist the suicide of someone with a "chronic" mental illness. Who gets to decide they are a candidate for the "Dignitas" euthenasia clinic? A psychiatrist. How? Through unscientific judgment. Through talking. Legal euthenasia of suicidal people as long as they have supposed "defects" says something about a society. It send the message that people who want to die are right and that people with the same things who choose life are "just too stupid to know their lives are worthless.".
I have a question. If you work in the mental health industry and blindly follow this philosophy...how do you look in the mirror?
It would nice if people actually argued with the facts I have presented. I ve noticed that assuming things about my history, wishing mental illness on my loved ones, or calling me a Scientologist (which I am not) is usually all anyone can muster after being presented with these facts. Kind of bizarre.
Answer :
You certainly seem to have a penchant for research. Perhaps you should be directing your energies to making a difference in the relevant academic field instead of casting your pearls before y!a swine, ahem.
You certainly seem to have a penchant for research. Perhaps you should be directing your energies to making a difference in the relevant academic field instead of casting your pearls before y!a swine, ahem.
