[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: NY TIMES SLAMS ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE ON FRONT PAGE



Nimnodius <nodrog@itsa.ucsf.edu> wrote:
>John:
>
>I noticed in your recitation that you failed to actually point out what 
>Gina Kolata's piece said that was WRONG.

Well, ok - I can tell you what I thought was wrong with this piece of 
propaganda.  And it is that.  When I went to the NY Times Syndicate page 
to look for an e-mail address for them I was impressed by that big Squibb 
ad dominating the page.  Cute.  They hadn't posted Gina's yellow 
journalism piece yet. 

Incidently, my local newspaper cut her article down to where it almost 
made sense and put it on A5.  Good for them.

Ok - here goes:

jhammell@ix.netcom.com(John Hammell) wrote:
>                    ON FRINGES OF HEALTH CARE,
>                    UNTESTED THERAPIES THRIVE
>           By Gina Kolata NY Times 6/17/96 Front Page

First off, even tho Kolata's article has this headline, there is no real 
discussion of *why* these "untested" therapies are thriving.  Many of 
them have been tested but people are choosing to ignore results of tests 
done in the 1950's and earlier.  There's a lot of good work to be brought 
forward.  Also non-American test results are ignored - can't trust those 
backward folks in Great Britain, France, Italy, Switzerland, Australia, 
and Germany after all - they're not *Americans*.

This whole article is insulting to most human beings.  It's assumed that 
if we find something works for us that hasn't been "proven" that we're 
gullible.  I believe that our First World populations are far more 
educated and less vulnerable to "placebos" than she or the MD's want to 
believe.   Since my personal experience includes having my reports 
dismissed by MD's and RN's as recently as 5 years ago that are now 
standard parts of what many of them are now telling their patients and 
publishing in pop med articles I believe my body first and them second.

I am snipping some of John's comments here for brevity only.  The 
original article is at news:4q6c9i$he2@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com

Use this as an URL and you'll get to the original.  Important info is in 
the beginning of this post.

>     From green algae pills to coffee enemas, from acupuncture to
>aromatherapy, alternative medical treatments have grown into a big
>business and a powerful force in modern medicine, alarming many in
>the medical establishment and largely escaping scrutiny from
>regulators.

Now coffee enemas is a good one to get people going (sorry, couldn't 
help myself) off on this topic.  The green algae pill mention of course 
shows she's spanning the range of "alternatives".   But the coffee enemas 
prejudice the whole thing from the start.  Nice rhetoric.

>     
>     Although folk remedies have been around for centuries, often
>co-existing with the treatments offered by orthodox medicine,
>medical experts say that over the past 10 years, more people have
>been turning to more kinds of alternative therapies than ever
>before. 

Again, there is no follow up on this intriguing statement.  Why are more 
and more people finding relief outside the patented FDA-approved 
medicines?   There are a lot of very valid reasons - not one of which is 
mentioned in this article.


>A national telephone survey, published in the New England
>Journal of Medicine in 1993, found that one out of three Americans
>used unconventional therapies which can range from taking vitamin
>C for a cold 

Since when is taking Vitamin C for a cold unconventional?  Where has she 
been?   Does anyone know one single physician who has ever told his 
patients *not* to take Vitamin C for a cold?


>to going to Mexican clinics for outlawed cancer
>treatments. 

The use of "outlawed" is interesting here.


>The survey also found that Americans spent $13.7
>billion in 1991 on such treatments.

And most of them paid directly out of their pockets for these - without 
benefit of insurance co-payment.  Most of this money was *earned* and if 
they were truly incapacitated, hard to come by.   Right here is a 
significant vote of confidence esp. if these include repeat purchases.  
But is this discussed?  Noooo.  We are asked to believe that this is 
evidence of how foolish people are.  Uh, HUH!! 

>     
>     Another national survey, published in 1994, found that 60% of
>doctors had at some time referred patients to practitioners of
>alternative medicine. 

However we are not told why, in which kinds of cases, or the outcomes of 
these referrals.  Why not?


>The highly prestigious Beth Israel Hospital
>in Boston, which is associated with Harvard Medical School,
>recently set up a center for alternative medicine, as did Columbia
>University. And five years ago, the Federal Office of Alternative
>Medicine was established as part of the National Institutes of
>Health to provide the public with information on alternative
>treatments and to find out what works.
>     
>     A growing number of health insurance companies, which
>increasingly set the standards for care, now cover once obscure
>treatments like naturopathy. Practitioners of Naturopathy say that
>disease arises from blockages of a flow of a life force throughout
>the body and that cures follow from treatments like acupuncture and
>homeopathy, treating patients with infinitesimal amounts of
>substances that in larger doses might produce symptoms of disease.

Now wait a minute.  I've never heard of Naturopathy.  Sorry.  I have 
found acupuncture extremely effective for certain problems.  I haven't 
tried homeopathy because the theory sounds odd to me although I'm 
beginning to wonder if they aren't supplying effective treatments in 
spite of the theories rather than because of it.

The way Gina states it, homeopathy sounds a lot like vaccination in 
theory - although she doesn't point that out.   But by saying that 
acupuncture and homeopathy are embraced by this "Naturopathy" she manages 
to cast "reasonable" doubt on both.  But I don't understand in what way 
that connection is valid for presenting accupuncture or homeopathy.  Both 
predate whatever Naturopathy is - it may approve of these two 
pre-existing modes but both of them stand on their own and are not 
related.  So what was she trying to do here, hmmm?

See the prejudicial nature of her writing?   It looks "reasonable" but in 
fact is very twisted.  We'll be seeing more and more of this propaganda 
as we get closer to the Medical Access hearings and the GATT mess in 
October.

>Meanwhile, many makers of alternative remedies have been reporting
>record sales. This financial growth is a direct result, analysts
>say, of a 1994 Federal law curbing the regulation of the industry
>by the Food and Drug Administration.

NO, NO, NO!!  What a liar she is.  The "new" regulation maintained 
the status quo in the face of the FDA's demands for guns and money to 
fight a war against chamomile and other "dangerous" substances like 
Vitamin C.   The 1994 regulation was forced into existance by the very 
unreasonable desires of the FDA to increase its authority.   They were 
already arming agents and making unwarranted (really - in the legal 
sense) seizures at the time the legislation was passed.  (IMHO the FDA 
boys had been watching too much "Miami Vice" and wanted to get some of 
the same kind of adrenal rushes.  At least it sure looked that way.)
  They needed curbing and most of Congress came to see the need to 
restrain them.   So what the new law did was state the status quo as 
regulation.   See this anywhere in her article??  No way, Jose!  Too 
close to the truth to suit the drug companies that are buying the NY 
Times.   

     
>     Many doctors, scientists and Government officials sharply
>criticize the practice of alternative medicine, saying that at best
>it does no harm

This is a problem?  And again, let's not specify whether we're taking 
about a cup of peppermint tea as a decent, safe decongestant or the 
notorious coffee enema.  Are these people complaining about the Vitamin C 
she mentioned above?   Who knows?   She's neatly lumped them all together 
so we can get our knee jerking when the Pavlovian bell is rung.  The 
trigger is supposed to be "alternative medicine".  Is your knee jerking 
yet?   If not, read on and fall into the trance she's planned for you.

 and at worst it can do real danger. While
>conventional medicine adopts procedures that are consistent with
>scientific hypotheses, and drugs must be stringently tested and
>approved by the F.D.A., alternative medicine practitioners can use
>therapies based on whims or discredited science, and their methods
>have not undergone rigorous tests.

Notice that there is no case made here that some of these remedies have 
been "tested" for thousands of years.   I'll bet $5 chamomile was used to 
settle stomachs 4,000 years ago.  Anybody?

Let's not mention that the FDA approves drugs with dangerous side-effects 
designed to provide a patented substitute for naturally occurring, 
unpatentable substances that do a better job more safely.  I've already 
mentioned peppermint as a decongestant - how about real progesterone 
instead of Provera?  It's being used in Europe much more than the United 
States most likely because Wyeth-Ayerst doesn't have the power there that 
it does with the FDA. 

 
>     
>     The critics of alternative medicine 

And they are the only ones you'll see quoted here except for Weill whose 
quote seems relatively meaningless - I can only guess that she plucked it 
from a context within which it had some bearing on something.

>point to reports about the
>dangers posed by some alternative treatments. Herbal preparations
>like ma huang, used in dietary supplements and widely available
>mood-altering products, have caused deaths,

Has ma huang killed anybody?  I really don't know - does anybody reading 
this?   I'd really appreciate the info.

 as have coffee enemas,

Have they?  Seriously.  Would this be due to a particular form of 
administration?  Like "high colonic"?   I don't ever remember hearing of 
anyone dying of coffee enemas per se.  Has anybody else?   Really want to 
know.  This smells like a lie to me or at least a gross 
misrepresentation.

>said to treat cancer and other diseases by detoxifying the body.
>The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute has documented cases
>of kidney failure and death in people who have had chelation
>therapy- the intravenous injection of the synthetic chelating agent
>EDTA- advertised as a treatment for heart disease and ailments like
>Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and sexual impotency.

I really don't know about chelation.  Again, I'd be glad to hear about 
it.
>     
>     The very name "alternative medicine" is Orwellian newspeak,
>implying that it is a viable option, said Dr. Marcia Angell,
>executive director of the New England Journal of Medicine. "Its a
>new name for snake oil," she said. "Theres medicine that works and
>medicine that doesn't work."

Dr. Marcia Angell sure has a lot to learn or is really invested in some 
dogma.  First, Marcia, there's nothing Orwellian about the term 
"alternative" - how many words meaning "alternative" to  describe the 
many "alternatives" to the dangerous and sometimes ineffective 
FDA-approved medicines do we have in English?  Hmmm?   Is it the use of 
the word "medicine" that she finds offensive?   I guess that's it.  
Thinks that since she doesn't want it in her "NE Journal of Medicine" 
then the word doesn't apply.   Someone give this girl a dictionary!!  
Puh-leeze!

>     
>     Dr. Arthur Kaplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the
>University of Pennsylvania, said, "Some say, "Look, why not let
>desperately ill people do what they want? Why stand between them
>and the latest piece of shark cartilage?"

Ahhh.  Finally some sense comes forward.  But not for long. 

>     
>     But he disagrees. Dr. Kaplan is gravely concerned, he said,
>that because of alternative medicine, some patients will reject
>reliable mainstream treatments.

I think that if one were to study those who are trying alternatives 
you'll find that we usually have been failed by the FDA approved 
treatments and have moved on to alternatives out of sheer desperation.

This "can't let them have them or they won't take what's good for them" 
attitude is harmful, demeaning, and ignores the evidence.

I could go on showing you what's wrong with this highly slanted piece of 
garbage which has appeared not only on the front page of the NY Times (Is 
this a new low for them or have they openly prostituted themselves on the 
front page before?  Love to hear examples!!) but in papers which 
subscribe to the NY Times Syndicate -  which does have several web pages 
available for your viewing pleasure.

I'm not going to proceed going through this further because it is just 
too stupid and sickening.  Haven't you seen enough?  If not, I've left 
the rest of the NY Times text and John's closing remarks below.

Sigh...   All this so that the drug companies can make more money.  
You'll notice that one theme that gets hammered on below is that the 
alternative treatments are diverting money away from the international 
"legal" cartels.  This reminds me of some rich kid with a swimming pool 
and a pony being angry that one of the maid's sons has a second-hand 
baseball glove.  "How dare he!!"  Check it out and see if I'm not right.

But if this doesn't answer your original question, Nimnodius, about what 
exactly is wrong with this article, I can go on!!  Let me know!

Thanks,

dn   


> Practitioners of alternative
>medicine, he said, encourage patients to think that "somehow, just
>by being outside the mainstream, nothing is risky or dangerous or
>has side effects." It is, he said, "ridiculous to say that
>chemotherapy can cause side effects but chelation therapy or coffee
>enemas, thats completely beyond risk."
>     
>     Alternative medicine encompasses a range of treatments outside
>those commonly accepted by the medical establishment. Generally,
>such treatments have not passed clinical trials. Although many
>medicinal herbs have pharmacologically active components, the focus
>of alternative medicine is not to isolate and test these
>ingredients.
>     
>     Alternative medicine includes therapies offered by
>chiropractors, acupuncturists and homeopaths. Also included may be 
>treatments like aromatherapy, the use of aromatic oil for
>relaxation, which is also promoted as a cure for hundreds of
>diseases. Alternative medicines include herbs, taken for various
>ills; green algae pills, said to foster alertness, and shark
>cartilage, promoted as a natural cure for cancer.
>     
>     The regulation of alternative practices varies. All states
>license chiropractors, but some license acupuncturists,
>naturopaths, homeopaths, and practitioners of Chinese medicine.
>Some practitioners are M.D.s or have D.O.s, doctor of osteopathy
>degrees, but others come from a broad range of backgrounds, ranging
>from correspondence courses to academic programs in schools that
>specialize in the field.
>     
>     Some supporters of alternative medicine say that it offers a
>much needed antidote to high-tech, impersonal, cost-driven health
>care, and that even if the treatments are not cures, they could
>have powerful placebo effects. They say it emphasizes a different
>view of health, one based on natural healing and nontoxic
>interventions. Dr.Andrew Weil, author of the best selling book
>"Spontaneous Healing" (Alfred A. Knopf, 1995) and director of the
>program in integrative medicine at the University of Arizona
>College of Medicine, said that alternative medicine "resonates with
>the spirit of the times."
>     
>     But the critics also point to reports of people with serious
>illnesses who have failed to pursue standard treatments in favor of
>alternative treatments that have not worked.
>     
>     Anita Gergasko, of Hazlet, N.J., was 58 when she died in a
>hospice from metastatic breast cancer, which she had fought for
>seven years. She had a mastectomy, her husband George Gergasko aid,
>but refused her doctors urging that she have chemotherapy, treating
>herself instead with massive doses of vitamin C and herbs. when the
>cancer later spread to her brain, she agreed to chemotherapy but
>also took megadoses of vitamin B-12, which can counteract the
>chemotherapy drug she was taking.
>     
>     "On her deathbed she made me promise that I would see to it
>that nobody else in her family and none of her friends would get
>involved with this stuff," Mr.Gergasko said.
>
>THE APPROACH
>A Reliance
>On Anecdotes
>
>     The rise in alternative treatments can be explained in part by
>the limits of modern medicine. Even though conventional, science-
>based medicine has reached unsurpassed heights of technical
>sophistication, it is still far from perfect. For many ills, it has
>nothing very effective to offer; doctors can seem hurried and
>brusque, and conventional treatments can be costly or painful.
>     
>     But alternative therapies, unlike conventional ones, have not
>passed rigorous scientific tests showing that they are safe and
>effective. Generally, the only assurance patients have that
>alternative treatments will work is anecdotal evidence from other
>patients and practitioners. That dismays leaders of conventional
>medicine, who say that such evidence is not reliable because
>patients and their practitioners fervently desire success and are
>inclined to judge a treatment more promising than it is.
>     
>     Dr.Weil, of the Arizona program, said he realized that
>alternative medicine treatments had not met scientific standards
>for efficacy ad safety. But "a great many things in standard
>medicine are not proven either- we just do them," he said.
>     
>     Doctors do sometimes find that conventional treatments are ill
>advised. For example, doctors no longer advise stress reduction to
>treat ulcers. Even reducing the amount of salt in the diet is
>increasingly in question.
>     
>     But Dr. Caplan said Dr. Weil's response blurred the
>distinction between conventional and alternative medicine.
>"Medicine at least has a tendency to be self-correcting and self
>critical," he said. "In lots of areas of alternative medicine, I
>haven't seen anybody even admit to the possibility of error."
>     
>     Dr. Weil said that as a practitioner, rather than a
>researcher, he was satisfied with a "different standard of proof,"
>like reports of patients who say they were helped. For disorders
>with no know cure, Dr. Weil said, "If I am faced with an immediate
>need for a treatment that might alleviate suffering or possibly
>promote a cure, and if I can assure myself that a treatment is
>safe, it is reasonable to try it."
>     
>     But Dr.Richard A. Friedman, director of psychopharmacology at
>New York Hospital- Cornell Medical Center, said, "Not only is it
>impossible for Dr. Weil to know if an untested treatment is safe,
>he also cannot know if it is dangerous." Untested treatments, Dr.
>Friedman said, "range from harmless placebos to deadly poisons, and
>the consumer has now way of knowing which is which."
>
>The Debate
>Natural Healing,
>Or Quackery?
>
>     Dr.Weil and others who support various forms of alternative
>medicine say it represents the rediscovery of a different way of
>thinking about health, one that forsakes rigid medical models and
>looks instead to natural ways of helping the body heal itself.
>     
>     Dr. David M. Eisenberg, who directs the new alternative
>medical center in Boston and who conducted the national telephone
>survey on alternative medicine said in an interview that for many
>people, alternative medicine might be a way of taking charge of
>their health or finding a practitioner who will take the time to
>listen to them. For many, the only harm is to their pocketbooks.
>     
>     But in a study published in 1991 in the New England Journal of
>Medicine, Dr.Barrie R. Cassileth, an adjunct social psychologist at
>the University of North Carolina who studies patients experiences
>with alternative cancer therapies, found- to her surprise, she
>said- that terminal cancer patients treated with coffee enemas and
>other alternative treatments were more miserable than those treated
>with chemotherapy and radiation and that their survival time was
>the same.
>     
>     Dr. Stephen Barrett, a retired psychiatrist and a board member
>of the National Council Against Health Fraud, sees another danger
>in the growth of alternative medicine, which he calls "quackery."
>     
>     "Quackery isn't necessarily about selling products or
>services- its about selling misbeliefs," Dr. Barrett said. "For a
>quack to thrive, he has to promote unwarranted distrust. If you can
>convince someone that the Government is not going to give you
>accurate information on any health matter, that doctors and
>researchers cannot be trusted, than that person will be damaged. If
>you are not sick, these misbeliefs may not cause you serious harm,
>but if you are sick, they may kill you."
>     
>     Still, several voices within orthodox medicine have softened
>their criticism of alternative practices, though often for reasons
>that do not include a belief in their efficacy. At the American
>Cancer Society, a spokeswoman, Susan Islam, said the term "unproven
>methods" had recently been replaced by "complementary and
>alternative methods" because of a concern with "political
>correctness." The term "unproven" she said, "is not P.C."
>
>The Regulations
>Industry Flourishes 
>Under New Rules
>
>     In 1994, Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and
>Education Act, which essentially did away with regulations on
>alternative medicines that called themselves foods or dietary
>supplements. Virtually overnight, it revolutionized the industry.
>     
>     Under the new law, products like herbs, shark cartilage or
>vitamins can be sold and promoted as cures for diseases or as
>treatments to enhance health as long as the claims were not made on
>the product labels. Manufacturers can make product claims in books,
>pamphlets and signs in stores where the products are sold. Before,
>manufacturers could make no health claims that the F.D.A had not
>approved.
>     
>     The leading supporter of the act was Senator Orrin G. Hatch,
>Republican from Utah, a state whose dietary supplement industry has
>sales of $1 billion a year. Dietary supplements include vitamins
>and formulas for gaining weight, as well as herbs, shark cartilage
>and melatonin.
>     
>     Critics of the new law say it has exposed cancer patients to
>outrageous claims for useless treatments. Dr. Charles Myers,
>director of the cancer center for the University of Virginia, says
>the law has "opened Pandora's box."
>     
>     But Mr. Hatch, who takes dietary supplements, is proud of his
>role in getting the law passed. "These products have worked for
>people and helped people," he said. "You show me a doctor who says
>they haven't helped, and I'll show you a prejudiced guy."
>     
>     Some alternative treatments are not regulated because they
>existed long before there were any regulations. Homeopathic
>remedies, for example, have never been subjected to testing for
>effectiveness because they were around before the F.D.A. had laws
>requiring that. They can stay on the market because the F.D.A.
>considers them safe.
>     Other treatments are permitted because practitioners use a
>legal product; chelation therapy uses EDTA, which is approved for
>lead-poisoning therapy. Treatments like coffee enemas and fruit
>juice diets for cancer are not regulated by the F.D.A. because they
>do not involve drugs.
>     
>     By all accounts, the alternative medicine business has grown
>explosively in recent years. In 1995, the stock of publicly traded
>dietary-supplement companies increased in value by up to 80
>percent; so far this year it is up 50 percent, said Matthew Patsky,
>an analyst for the Boston firm Adams, Harkness and Hill and a
>specialist in the dietary supplement business. The 1995 increase
>for the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 33.5 percent; for this
>year it is 10.4 percent.
>     
>     After the 1994 act became law, Mr.Patsky said, "there was a
>recognition that there was not much risk in selling dietary
>supplements." So investors became interested, and that "has created
>an opportunity for these companies to go ahead and raise money in
>the public markets," he added.
>     
>     The market for dietary supplements has grown by about 15
>percent a year in the past few years, and one part of it, the
>herbal market, has grown by about 25 percent a year, he said. In
>contrast, the market for brand name foods has grown about 2 to 3
>percent a year, Mr.Patsky said.
>     
>     Purveyors of specific therapies report unprecedented public
>interest. The American Colon Therapy Association, which promotes
>colonic irrigation, reports a 50 percent growth in the number of
>practitioners in the past year in the United States, with about 500
>now practicing.
>     
>     Alternative medicine is finding more acceptance among
>insurers. In 1992, the American Western Life Insurance Company
>offered a plan that used naturopaths rather than conventional
>doctors. That plan accounts for 25 percent of new business this
>year, a representative of the company said.
>     
>     Richard Coorsh, a spokesman for the Health Insurance
>Association of America, said several state legislatures were now
>requiring insurance companies to cover various alternative
>therapies, like chiropractor and naturopath services. Insurance
>plans in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut must pay for
>chiropractors, and New York insurance plans must pay for
>podiatrists. But so far, insurance companies in New York, New
>Jersey and Connecticut don't have to pay for other alternative
>treatments.
>     
>     "When you examine how much money is being spent," said
>Dr.Raymond Kenhard, an oncologist at John's Hopkins University and
>president of the American Cancer Society, "you really would demand
>that there is some evidence or what you are receiving."
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>Please forward this article! Please refer to my notes about calling
>members of Congress in support of S.1035 / HR 2019 The Access to
>Medical Treatment Act. Please send your rebuttal to this horrendous
>article to the NY Times National News Dept at 229 W.43 St. NY, NY
>10036. (They don't give out a fax number.)
>
>If you have anything to say to Gina Kolata of the NY Times, she can
>be called via 212-556-1234. 
>
>Call Dr.Marcia Angell, executive editor of the New England Journal
>of Medicine at 617-734-9800, FAX 617-734-4457
>
>Call Dr.Arthur Kaplan at Center of Bio Ethics, University of
>Pennsylvania at 215-898-3055.
>
>If you'd like to see the Office of Alternative Medicine publish a
>rebuttal, call their press secretary, Anita Green at 202-496-1712. 
>Be sure to call your Congressman and Senators to ask that they
>cosponsor HR 2019 S.1035 The Access to Medical Treatment Act- which
>allows an individual to be treated by any licensed health care
>practitioner with any treatment method they desire as long as:
>
>1) The treatment causes no serious harm other than reactions
>experienced with routinely used medical treatments for the same
>medical condition and,
>
>2) The patient is fully informed about the treatment and its
>possible side effects. This is a freedom of choice issue. The US is
>currently ranked a dismal 17th in life expectancy, and high medical
>costs are breaking the back of this country. Lost cost alternatives
>will help improve the health of Americans due to their preventive
>nature. The Access to Medical Treatment Act opens up a closed
>system to the use of alternative treatments, encouraging free
>market competition which will help bring medical costs down.
>



>
>I, for one, was mortified to see the research studies being funded by 
>OAM.  What a load of crappola.  What this area needs is some 
>sophisticated methodologists sitting down to design excellent studies in 
>this area.  What they got was a bunch of duffers who are going to do 
>surveys and phone interviews and focus groups.
>
>You know what they'll end up with?  
>
>Misc.health.alternative
>
>"People go to a lot of alternaopaths and really really really really 
>like them - at elast the ones we got to interview"
>
>Great - just what this field needs more anecdote and opinion.
>
>--
>
>Very very disappointedly,
>
>nim
>
>PS: did you notice that the top 4 sellers of supplements grossed > 
>$2 billion last year - that must explain why no one will fund research 
>in this area - no money to be made . . .




-- 

"the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide 
conversation.  The Government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that 
conversation.  As the most participatory form of mass speech yet 
developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental 
intrusion."     Judge Stuart Dalzell



Follow-Ups: