Volatility

June 1, 2017

Fighting the CRISPR Lie

>

Meet the new GM, same as the old GM.

 
 
Here’s the latest addition to the already substantial evidence of the danger and shoddiness of the CRISPR “gene editing” technique. In a medical research study the researchers wanted to find out how many mutations CRISPR really causes. Therefore they sequenced the entire genomes of the mice subjects instead of the usual procedure of sampling them according to a computer algorithm which predicts where mutations are likely to be. They found thousands of mutations not predicted by the algorithm.
 
The algorithm procedure is typical crackpot reductive science with little or no validity for the real world:
 

“These predictive algorithms seem to do a good job when CRISPR is performed in cells or tissues in a dish, but whole genome sequencing has not been employed to look for all off-target effects in living animals,” says co-author Alexander Bassuk, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Iowa….

“Researchers who aren’t using whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may be missing potentially important mutations,” Dr. Tsang says. “Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact.”

 
We see how different the result is when the study focuses on something closer to reality, the whole genomes of test subjects.
 
 
Here’s the takeaways and talking points.
 
1. This is just the latest proof that gene editing causes an extreme number of mutations and therefore is unsafe.
 
The health dangers of the “new” GMOs are the same as for the old GMOs. Scrambled genomes, insertional and tissue culture mutations, and the effects of these: A gene producing too much or too little of a protein with toxic or other ill effects, producing the wrong protein with toxic effect, producing a misfolded protein with toxic effect (Mad Cow disease is caused by a misfolded protein), toxically excessive or foreign metabolites, gene or cell damage leading to cancer or any number of other severe and lethal diseases.
 
2. This is just the latest proof of how gene editing is highly imprecise.
 
Once again we see how any claim to precision will never be anything more than one of the standard lies of genetic engineering. And make no mistake – this is a willful, deliberate campaign of lying on the part of the scientific establishment, government regulators, and the mainstream media. We’re far past the point of it being possible to be honestly mistaken about any of this. Everyone knows “precision” was a lie from the beginning, so even those who willfully choose not to look at the specific evidence in the case of CRISPR still knows its alleged precision is being touted by the same old liars. We’re long past the point where it’s possible to have good faith trust in any corporation, or to advocate such trust. On the contrary, anyone from government or media who says or implies that we the people should trust any corporation is acting in the worst of bad faith.
 
3. In both these ways the “new” GMOs are nothing new. On the contrary they’re the same old GMOs. That’s why we should call them retread GMOs.
 
4. As in every other case, retread GM products like the Simplot potato and the botox apple are nothing but an inferior, more complex and expensive, less safe version of already existing non-GM varieties which are better, safer, and less expensive. Those are RNAi products; any future CRISPR products would be no different. We see how the retread GMOs, just like all previous GMOs, have no redeeming agronomic or social purpose. On the contrary their only purpose is corporate profit and control, and to feed the idiot fantasies of the scientism cult which worships inferior high-maintenance technology for its own sake. They believe because it’s absurd.
 
5. We must stress that there is nothing at all “unintended” about these effects. The effects of genetic engineering are grossly unpredictable, but this unpredictability is known and embraced ahead of time. “Unpredictable” has nothing conceptually in common with “unintended.” We can compare the typical operations of poison-based agriculture to spinning a roulette wheel where the various colors and numbers indicate various chaotic effects, many of them to be a surprise. Which number will come up is unpredictable, but one spins the wheel with full malice aforethought, full intent to trigger the chaos.
 
Genetic engineers and breeders involved in developing GM crops for commercial release have full knowledge of their inability to predict anything, therefore they intend chaotic results, just as they do with their broader mandate to drive climate change and pump as much synthetic poison into ecosystems as possible. The pro-GMO activists simply lie about all this when they make any claim to “precision” or predictability. No one who wanted stable, predictable results would still be working with genetic engineering. Where it comes to our food, agriculture, and environment, we’re not just spinning the roulette wheel. We’re playing Russian roulette, as Black Swan author Nassim Taleb put it.
 
Therefore I recommend to anyone interested in conceptual and terminological discipline that we discard the whole false notion of “unintended” effects of GMOs, pesticides, climate change, etc. This is factually wrong and morally far too lenient. Chaos is the predictable effect of genetic engineering, therefore the pro-GM activists intend chaos. That’s one of the purposes of this massive uncontrolled human feeding experiment, to log the unpredictable effects of the globally promiscuous deployment of GMOs in the environment and diet. They premeditate the chaos so they can hope someday to understand it, toward vastly further-reaching eugenic goals.
 
6. As a group the retread GMOs must be seen and publicly branded as nothing but a propaganda campaign trying to revamp the tattered image of GMOs, which are increasingly being seen in their true light as a shoddy, backward, regressive, reactionary technology dedicated to propping up the antiquated, proven failure of the paradigm of pesticide-based agriculture. Objectively, the retread campaign adds nothing new in any way at all.
 
The retreads also enable the legalistic and propaganda campaign of regulators like the USDA who want to abdicate all responsibility for GMO oversight. Lately I’ve been writing often about the need to relinquish all faith in government regulators and that this movement has the task of demolishing all public trust in regulatory agencies. Here’s yet more proof that the regulators are not on our side, serve no constructive purpose, and that we don’t need them: By the regulators’ own testimony they have no reason for being, since they themselves openly abdicate all responsibility for GM oversight.
 
 
 
Help propagate the abolitionist ideas.
 
 
 
 
Advertisements

11 Comments

  1. I love how you link all this crap to your own site but not the study you claim to site. Can you link that too, please?

    Comment by William — June 7, 2017 @ 6:15 pm

    • It’s great, ain’t it?

      But seriously, the link is right there in the very first sentence. I can see how it’s easy to miss, so front and center like that.

      Comment by Russ — June 8, 2017 @ 8:51 am

      • That first link does not take you to the paper. It takes you to another article on this site which links yet to another article about the paper itself. Please. I’d love to have honest conversations about this topic, but you can hardly do that when you don’t properly site your sources. In addition, it hardly seems like a conspiracy when scientists themselves are reporting issues with a particular technology.

        Comment by William — June 8, 2017 @ 11:00 am

      • Well, it would’ve been nice if the original had linked the study and not just named it and given all the information on it. Nevertheless a 10 second copy-and-paste of the study title into a Google search brought up the Nature link along with a whole roster of media commentary.

        http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v14/n6/full/nmeth.4293.html

        So you’re being disingenuous when you pretend you couldn’t find it. I’d be happy to have honest conversations about these matters, but we’re already off to a bad start with that fake “gotcha”, not to mention calling the work of this site “crap”. But then, pro-GM activists invariably open with personal insults because they’re incapable of rational, evidence-based argument. That’s an inherent limitation of their gutter authoritarianism and general stupidity as well as a reflection of the fact that reason, logic, and all the evidence is always against them.

        Moving on, I didn’t say it’s a conspiracy when scientists themselves highlight the extreme limitations and imprecision of these technologies and the extreme theoretical ignorance of engineers, and implicitly expose the lies of the technocratic establishment and its fanboys. On the contrary, one of my favorite points is precisely that the scientists themselves, almost all otherwise pro-GM, are the ones always demonstrating how little they know about how genomes work and therefore what a lie it is when engineers claim to work from any kind of firm theoretical knowledge or technical precision.

        But it certainly is systematic lying when pro-GM activists including scientists and science writers continue to lie about the level of their knowledge and technical competence, not to mention the long, unbroken and unequivocal evidence record of corporate agriculture’s results. But that’s the way religious fundamentalists like these always act: They have “Truth” and therefore can dispense with truth.

        Comment by Russ — June 8, 2017 @ 5:37 pm

  2. Goodness. I have to wrap my head around this sentence and try to make sense of all the 100 dollar words you’re tossing around in an attempt to maintain some semblance of authority. You DON’T have the title of the article in your primary post here, forcing a reader to click on other links to find out the study you reference. Thank you for posting the link. You DID say it was a conspiracy (absurd) by the scientific establishment. And I quote, “Once again we see how any claim to precision will never be anything more than one of the standard lies of genetic engineering. And make no mistake – this is a willful, deliberate campaign of lying on the part of the scientific establishment, government regulators, and the mainstream media. We’re far past the point of it being possible to be honestly mistaken about any of this. Everyone knows “precision” was a lie from the beginning, so even those who willfully choose not to look at the specific evidence in the case of CRISPR still knows its alleged precision is being touted by the same old liars. We’re long past the point where it’s possible to have good faith trust in any corporation, or to advocate such trust. On the contrary, anyone from government or media who says or implies that we the people should trust any corporation is acting in the worst of bad faith.”

    I am not a GM activist. There are legitimate issues I am willing to discuss about GMOs (Land management, health issues that arise in farming communities that apply large quantities of pesticides, agricultural run-off, and monoculture). You grossly inflate and misstate problems through assumptions and ignorance. Gene editing is not “highly” imprecise. CRISPR-Cas9 editing is still a relatively new tool, yes, and it is still being experimented with. However, any organism that is modified in a laboratory via mutagenesis techniques would undergo a full genome sequencing to ensure that it lacked unintended mutations. It’s such a simple solution that the amount of angst and conspiracy peddling in your posts is almost laughable. Even scientists who dislike Monsanto do not think the issues you raise here are legitimate concerns because there are very simple techniques that can/would be employed to ensure that a food product does not hit the market with unintended mutations.

    If anyone seems raging at the pulpit of religion, it is you.

    Comment by William — June 8, 2017 @ 6:03 pm

    • I apologize for making you do a little work. Sorry, judging by your tone I would’ve pegged you for an internet veteran who can find his way. Of course I’m not writing for your like in the first place, in case you didn’t notice.

      Exactly which “100 dollar words” did I use? I’d say I write clear English. And to say again for the mentally impaired, the initial link was sufficient for anyone marginally competent at online navigating, which I assume includes even you, to find the study. So I stand by my contention that you’re just pretending you couldn’t find it.

      And may I ask, what queries do you direct to MSM writers and other activists who call CRISPR a “precise” technique, demanding their scientific evidence? Not to mention the evidence for every other pro-GMO lie.

      You reveal the extent of your bad faith with your flat out lie about genome testing and food products. You know perfectly well that no government or corporation EVER scientifically tested ANY GMO for food safety. Just as you know that governments and corporations have systematically lied about the public health and environmental devastation of pesticides for many decades. And just as you know that the “new” GMOs are exactly the same as the old GMOs.

      So far as I can see you’re a typical combination of liar and religious ignoramus. If you really knew anything about the agronomic harms of poison-based agriculture you wouldn’t be retarded enough to argue for the “GM” version of the exact same corporations perpetrating the exact same insanity and crime. People who aren’t idiots figure out sooner or later that a criminal is a criminal, no matter which weapon he uses.

      Funny that you want to impugn my knowledge, at the same time that you whine about my linking to my cumulative body of work over years. But this site is nothing more or less than a bastion of cumulative applied knowledge, which is why I continually build upon what I’ve written before. I’ve presented a comprehensive argument which describes the actions of the corporate-technocrat system, analyzes this pattern of action in light of modern history, and induces the goals of this pattern based on that. What, praytell, mode of thought do you apply to the world which gives a better analytic and predictive result than this?

      Comment by Russ — June 9, 2017 @ 6:42 am

    • Of course if you really cared about those things you’re concern-trolling about – “Land management, health issues that arise in farming communities that apply large quantities of pesticides, agricultural run-off, and monoculture” – then you wouldn’t waste any computer bits trying to defend an obvious fraud like CRISPR. What possible good does a fantasist like you think can come of it? Human health needs clean water, ample healthy food, a socially secure way of life, and if there’s to be a big government, it would carry out its rightful health care functions for the good of everyone, which of course would be much less expensive and provide much higher quality care than your corporate system. Compared to that your techno-drivel is the most picayune and despicable kind of lie, intentionally deployed to distract from the real causes and solutions I just listed.

      The fact is, the one and only reason you have a hard-on for CRISPR is the adolescent religious fantasy I already described. There’s no conceivable rational defense of it, neither on its own crackpot merits nor according to the proven destructive uses it would ever be put, as we already know from the entire history of such technologies.

      Comment by Russ — June 9, 2017 @ 6:45 am

  3. I’ll add in closing: If you fail to see the irony of stating that the scientific establishment has a conspiracy running to push the efficacy of some technique while posting a paper by a group of scientists that concisely states the problem, it’s a little difficult to take you seriously.

    Comment by William — June 8, 2017 @ 6:51 pm

    • Perhaps you’d better go back and read again how Nature and its followers, in the very body of the reports on the study, still lie about the “precision” of the action. You sure need lots of hand-holding.

      It’s called double-think and hypocrisy. Look them up. Like the way someone like you probably has the vapors about “climate change” yet thinks you can mitigate it while still continuing with productionism, consumerism, capitalism, “growth”, the car, luxury air travel, every other idiotic high-energy luxury, and extreme energy consumption in general. Do you have such idiot notions?

      I’m saying your scientists are a kind of destructive retard, “idiot savants” who are morbidly stupid about history, stupid about anything outside their discipline, stupid about any implication of their findings, and stupid where it comes to general knowledge. They’re rabid dogs. Get it?

      Comment by Russ — June 9, 2017 @ 6:54 am

  4. Your writing and your replies to me have all hallmarks of a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Whenever you’re confronted by an argument that somehow deviates from the narrative you’ve constructed in your mind (based on false assumptions and some innocent ignorance) you immediately fall back on red herrings, ad hominem attacks, and straw man arguments. Since it’s clear that there can be no real discourse with you (as you ignore what’s being said and circle back around to either things you’ve already said with zero proof, or fall back on calling people retards) I will reply this one last time. After which, I shall set your blog and replies to my spam box, where they both belong.

    Now, to broach this painful thing in earnest:
    “I apologize for making you do a little work. Sorry, judging by your tone I would’ve pegged you for an internet veteran who can find his way. Of course I’m not writing for your like in the first place, in case you didn’t notice.”

    Any serious writer knows that if they’re writing things based on empirical evidence, it’s bad writing and journalism to force your readers to go through three or four steps to find your sources. Sources should be listed as they are mentioned or at the end of the article. If you can’t see that, this particular point is dead in the water.

    “Exactly which “100 dollar words” did I use? I’d say I write clear English. And to say again for the mentally impaired, the initial link was sufficient for anyone marginally competent at online navigating, which I assume includes even you, to find the study. So I stand by my contention that you’re just pretending you couldn’t find it. “

    Perfect example of my opening statement. If you’d learn context, you’d know what I meant by 100 dollar words. You just use eloquence-sprinkled rage in an attempt to sound more informed than you really are.

    “And may I ask, what queries do you direct to MSM writers and other activists who call CRISPR a “precise” technique, demanding their scientific evidence? Not to mention the evidence for every other pro-GMO lie.”

    Read the literature; all of it. You misunderstand the difference between conspiracy and debate. Since you’re such a Google Ninja, I trust you can use Google Scholar. You’ve got your homework cut out for you if you really want to be informed on the subject of CRISPR, and you’ll find little evidence of us nefarious scientists trying to poison the world for money. Not to say that Monsanto hasn’t don’t some crappy things in the name of money, they’ve done plenty. Also, not to say that there aren’t unscrupulous scientists; there are. However, there is no concerted effort by us an army to dupe the public into anything. The vast majority of us just want to help the world. We even had a symposium on it at a recent conference attended by tens of thousands of people. We are working hard, internally, to develop methods of outing fake science and bad data. We seek funding mechanisms that fund research focused on the reproducibility of high impact research. In short, the vast majority of us care about truth and the world. Your characterization of us in horrendously false and paranoid.

    “You reveal the extent of your bad faith with your flat out lie about genome testing and food products. You know perfectly well that no government or corporation EVER scientifically tested ANY GMO for food safety. Just as you know that governments and corporations have systematically lied about the public health and environmental devastation of pesticides for many decades. And just as you know that the “new” GMOs are exactly the same as the old GMOs.”

    This statement reveals the level of your ignorance about the government’s role and mandate in product testing. The USDA and FDA do not have a mandate to test new products. They have a mandate to demand the creators of the products have them tested and proven safe before they are released to the market. There have been over 1700 published papers attempting to discern the safety of the consumption of GMO crops. None of them have found any evidence that the CONSUMPTION OF GMO CROPS poses a health risk to individuals (well, none that weren’t retracted when it later was found out they were lying or practicing shoddy science). The government DOES test for pesticide residues on food lots, or for pathogen contamination. That is the extent of their mandate. They do not have the funding or personnel to do more. Those are issues best broached with Congress, as they appropriate funds and provide mandates to government agencies. If an agency lacks a mandate to do something you think it should be doing, it is the corporate lobbyist and dirty politicians you should focus your ire on, not the scientists who both do the research and try to influence policy at these agencies for the better.
    There is a wealth of research that shows consuming GMOs are safe. You just have to stop ignoring it so you can continue your “abolitionist” fantasy. The technology required to easily and cheaply sequence entire organisms with larger-than-4 M DNA bases is here with the invention of the PacBio RSII. A company that uses a mutagenesis technique that has the risk of unintended mutations would now sequence the genome quite readily.

    “So far as I can see you’re a typical combination of liar and religious ignoramus. If you really knew anything about the agronomic harms of poison-based agriculture you wouldn’t be retarded enough to argue for the “GM” version of the exact same corporations perpetrating the exact same insanity and crime. People who aren’t idiots figure out sooner or later that a criminal is a criminal, no matter which weapon he uses.
    Funny that you want to impugn my knowledge, at the same time that you whine about my linking to my cumulative body of work over years. But this site is nothing more or less than a bastion of cumulative applied knowledge, which is why I continually build upon what I’ve written before. I’ve presented a comprehensive argument which describes the actions of the corporate-technocrat system, analyzes this pattern of action in light of modern history, and induces the goals of this pattern based on that. What, praytell, mode of thought do you apply to the world which gives a better analytic and predictive result than this?”

    Actually what you’ve done is delude yourself into a series of beliefs based on ignorance, fear, and rage. There are only eight genetically modified crops that Monsanto sells: alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton,sorghum, soybeans, sugarbeets and wheat.
    Of those crops, only three are heavily farmed: Wheat, cotton, and corn. Cotton isn’t consumed. Those are Round-Up resistant crops. There are so many other GM-crops that have nothing to do with pesticides. The papaya is a great example, which has been engineered to produce an anti-sense RNA that silences an aphid-delivered virus which was decimating the crop. Anti-browning apples, resilient potatoes, drought resistant crops of all sorts exist and pose zero risk to humans, even at the level of pesticide application. No more so than do “organic” crops. In fact, “organic” crops suffer from some of the same pesticide issues that GM crops do. Look up research on copper accumulation in soils at organic farms. Copper is a great antimicrobial, and since it’s natural, it’s allowed to be used by organic farmers. However, since it’s not as effective as some of the synthetic pesticides, they use a lot of it. This gets into the soil, and then the water table. There have already been municipalities where children have suffered copper poisoning. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/13/broken-system-means-millions-of-rural-americans-exposed-to-poisoned-or-untested-water/94071732/ and (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/04/19/detr-a19.html) just to start).

    “Of course if you really cared about those things you’re concern-trolling about – “Land management, health issues that arise in farming communities that apply large quantities of pesticides, agricultural run-off, and monoculture” – then you wouldn’t waste any computer bits trying to defend an obvious fraud like CRISPR. What possible good does a fantasist like you think can come of it? Human health needs clean water, ample healthy food, a socially secure way of life, and if there’s to be a big government, it would carry out its rightful health care functions for the good of everyone, which of course would be much less expensive and provide much higher quality care than your corporate system. Compared to that your techno-drivel is the most picayune and despicable kind of lie, intentionally deployed to distract from the real causes and solutions I just listed.
    The fact is, the one and only reason you have a hard-on for CRISPR is the adolescent religious fantasy I already described. There’s no conceivable rational defense of it, neither on its own crackpot merits nor according to the proven destructive uses it would ever be put, as we already know from the entire history of such technologies.”

    You become so unhinged here that you’re a parody of yourself. Look at your writing, at your other blog posts. Who’s the fanatic? You don’t actually list real causes. Literally no other well-informed person, or even scientists who are anti-GMO agree with your assessment and would treat you as you come off: a mad man who knows multisyllabic words.

    “Perhaps you’d better go back and read again how Nature and its followers, in the very body of the reports on the study, still lie about the “precision” of the action. You sure need lots of hand-holding.
    It’s called double-think and hypocrisy. Look them up. Like the way someone like you probably has the vapors about “climate change” yet thinks you can mitigate it while still continuing with productionism, consumerism, capitalism, “growth”, the car, luxury air travel, every other idiotic high-energy luxury, and extreme energy consumption in general. Do you have such idiot notions?
    I’m saying your scientists are a kind of destructive retard, “idiot savants” who are morbidly stupid about history, stupid about anything outside their discipline, stupid about any implication of their findings, and stupid where it comes to general knowledge. They’re rabid dogs. Get it?”

    Here you go again making a ton of assumptions and baseless accusations both about me and about the scientific community. When a conspiracy supporter has a conspiracy they want people to believe, the onus of proof lies with the conspirator. None of your writing has proof. It has ancillary links to other garbage posted by people who believe as you do. Its clear you’re not writing for me to “like” anything. No, you’re essentially participating in a massive circle jerk with other like-minded individuals who feel as you do without ever really taking the time to critically think about something. I will give you points for verbosity and eloquence, though it counts for little when what you say is so painfully absurd that you appear to be the retards you mock so viscerally. The only idiot savant here is the author of this blog. I’ll admit I stumbled onto your blog quite by accident, and after looking at the breadth and depth of your post, realized I’d stumbled onto a vapid, rabid, Alex-Jones-esque nut job. I regret even giving you the time and attention I have.

    In fact, pondering this question of who you’re writing for brings further mystification. Your readership appears to max out at about six people at any given time, with perhaps a total of 250 people who have ever bothered to look at the drivel you publish. At least when I write something it gets reviewed by sane individuals and actually consumed by the community both within science and by the layperson. You keep your burning crusade going, though, Russ. Perhaps one day you’ll get ten people in the same room all rabidly circle jerking around the same target. The true shame in it, though, is that you’ll all only wind up soiling your own shoes.
    Take care.

    Comment by William — June 9, 2017 @ 11:55 am

    • As usual with pro-GM activists, you’re projecting all your own traits. You opened up spewing insults and rigmarole, and then got upset when I didn’t reply the way you’d like. And of course you give no legitimate examples of where I’m wrong, because you can’t. Has corporate industrial agriculture driven hunger, environmental crisis, and billions off their land and into immiseration, or not? You know it has, yet you defend the indefensible because you’re a sociopath, like every technocrat.

      Of course you have zero response to any of my points about corporate agriculture, just like every GE cultist (i.e., corporate bootlick) going back to the beginning in the 1970s. That’s because you can’t give an answer to why any of these shoddy products, even if they were safe and did work, would be necessary when in every case agroecology already provides better, safer, less expensive equivalents. Just like you have nothing to say in response to the facts about human health. Food and health care, and pretty much everything else, are 100% artificial political problems, and “solutions” which tout high-maintenance technology, in addition to their many other pathologies, are designed to be nothing but misdirection from the political truth, in order to forestall any real solution. That’s what I write, the condemnation of these vile scams and the call to the real solutions.

      But you’re incapable of responding because you have only two criteria, and neither has anything to do with practical agronomy or human and environmental well-being. Your only criteria are corporate domination and technocratic manipulation for their own sakes.

      https://attempter.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/the-historical-context-of-the-genetic-engineering-conventional-breeding-lie/

      You didn’t respond to what I said about climate change. Why so shy? Your industrial agriculture is the biggest driver of it. Why not be proud and openly say “Fuck the climate!” That’s what you all really think. Your actions prove it. And after all, isn’t changing the climate the ultimate engineering rush? That’s why, in the same way the technocrats want to follow up their largely uncontrolled experiment in the effects of agricultural GMOs on humans with a more controlled experiment in GE human eugenics, so they want to follow up their largely uncontrolled campaign of climate engineering via GHG emissions and destruction of sinks with more allegedly controllable campaigns of geoengineering.

      You deny this, you call it “conspiracy theory”? Name a single thing I said here which isn’t 100% within the mainstream of the logic of the engineering ideology, and which isn’t constantly being openly avowed by your Ventners and Kurzweils.

      For anyone who’s interested in the truth about the fraudulent, worthless specific products you touted:

      https://attempter.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/the-drought-lie-amid-power-struggles-in-kenya/

      https://attempter.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/syngenta-dupont-monsanto-agree-gm-isnt-needed-and-doesn't-work-for-drought-resistance/

      https://attempter.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/boycott-simplot/

      Comment by Russ — June 9, 2017 @ 5:09 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: