Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

The discussion of the Linus Pauling vitamin C/lysine invention for chronic scurvy

Moderator: ofonorow

exitium
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#61  Post by exitium » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:44 pm

Serdna wrote:
stcrim wrote:AFAIK it is in this book where the only data in support of coronary artery calcium plaque reversal by vitamin C is presented. I think that piece of evidence is really very scarce. I think that the unified hypothesis proposed by Dr. Rath has not conclusive experiment results backing it up.


Unfortunatly a lot of the FDA's RDI's are based on a lot less science than Paulings theory is based on. Pauling tried to get funding for a study but was turned down. The sad truth is studies are expensive and vitamins cant be patented so who is going to fund such a study? The doctors with massive school bills to pay off or hospitals with mega million dollar cardio wings? The only one to benefit from proving Paulings/Raths theories are the people who are going to die from not trying his recommendations.

At the end of the day, even in light of their being no double blind scientific studies there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of case histories of people who have used the therapy and reversed heart disease.

Considering there are over 650 studies showing the benefit of vitamin C and its relatively low cost there really isnt any reason why someone wouldnt try it.

While the reversal of plaque in arteries close to the heart doesnt have any studies to back it u p(or I might ad refute it) I believe Dr Bush has significant visual proof showing atheroma and the reversal of it by vitamin C in arteries of the retina.

studentroland
Vitamin C Master
Vitamin C Master
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:27 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#62  Post by studentroland » Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:15 pm

Why does anything of these matter? Because the scientific method as brilliantly formalized by Popper needs scientists to design experiments focused into falsify their hypothesis. I am not aware of any of this kind for the unified hypothesis of cardiovascular disease.

I find this an interesting way of reasoning, because I don´t yet know how to deal with this kind of reasoning other than neglect it and focus elsewhere...however...since it still is interesting to me to come up with a logical way of remembering why scientists don´t design experiments to falsify the "unified hypothesis of cardiovascular disease", I first had to find out what it was, and I wound up here.
On this web-site a bit down, the answer given to the question "why doesn´t scientists design experiments to falsify the 'unified hypothesis of cardiovascular disease'", is given as:
The method for reversing heart disease invented by Linus Pauling does not require a doctor.

I´m not sure whether "scientists" and "doctors" counts as synonymous in this case, so I have to come up with another line of reasoning...by looking here, I learned that:
For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan.

So, by this way of reasoning, it is impossible to verify Paulings hypothesis due to the "problem of induction", and I can´t come up with a way to falsify the hypothesis...yet...since the paper describing the hypothesis is so long... then again, perhaps medicine isn´t even a pure science of it´s own in the first place, with hypotheses in need of falsifications...but applied science, as medical historian Jan Hendersson points out here, and perhaps this distinction didn´t even exist "back-in-the-day" when Linus Pauling and Mathias Rath formulated their hypothesis?

Serdna
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:25 pm
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#63  Post by Serdna » Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:45 am

tjohnson_nb wrote:Have you heard of Dr. Sydney Bush? http://www.whale.to/a/bush_h.html
He claims to have seen reversal of deposits in blood vessels in the eye.

Yes, I had read it before his web disappeared. Nevertheless the progression/regression of peripheral plaque may or may not imply a progression/regression of coronary artery plaque. Take a look at Carotid Artery Ultrasound and Prediction of Cardiovascular Risk at page 7 of William R.Ware's research report.

exitium wrote:At the end of the day, even in light of their being no double blind scientific studies there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of case histories of people who have used the therapy and reversed heart disease.

Perhaps it is 100% effective at that, perhaps not. That's the problem when you only heard back from those that are still alive. Moreover, I think they have controlled heart disease, not cure it. As Owen has said before (for example in the page linked by studentroland):
Owen wrote:Stopping the Pauling therapy (vitamin C and lysine) seems to invariably lead to a relapse, usually a heart attack, in about six months.

Once you focus on coronary artery calcium score instead of another surrogate marker of heart disease as carotid artery ultrasound or coronary artery angiography, I would think that reversal is more durable. Dr. Davis sees no more heart attacks in his compliant patients.

studentroland wrote:perhaps medicine isn´t even a pure science of it´s own in the first place, with hypotheses in need of falsifications...but applied science, as medical historian Jan Hendersson points out here,
No doubt, but a more precise hypothesis should be preferable. Nevertheless the hypothesis seems to say very little about atheroma plaque regression.

studentroland
Vitamin C Master
Vitamin C Master
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:27 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#64  Post by studentroland » Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:34 am

Take a look at Carotid Artery Ultrasound and Prediction of Cardiovascular Risk at page 7

Yes, I did...and it says nothing whatsoever concerning "progression/regression" of plaque, but talks mainly about the uselessness of the diagnosting-method using relative thickness of arterywalls (cIMT) as an indicator of cardiovascular events...to contrast this no-good method-of-diagnose, he says that, quote:"It is well known that Coronary Artery Calcium Score (CACS) is directly and strongly related to the risk of coronary events", unquote.
Moreover, I think they have controlled heart disease, not cure it

In Pauling/Rath´s/Stone´s time-perspective of evolution and AA-supplementation, we´re all dealing with a genetic condition named Hypoascorbemia without any cure in forseeable sight, only control/management of the multitude possible outcomes following a lack of control brings, is possible for anyone to achieve, be they diagnosed or not...
I would think that reversal is more durable.

Reversal is very good, ain´t it? It sounds almost as synonymous to "regression"... :mrgreen: On the "TYP"-website it says that coronary heart disease (CHD) is reversible and using the three steps outlined there, one will enjoy elimination of risk for developing CVD., but it does not mention vitamin C.? So, by this way of reasoning, reversal of CVD is possible to achieve using Dr. Davis 3-point approach, and if one adds to this regimen the PT, it sounds to me as if both elimination of risk for CVD aswell-as reversal of CHD in combination with regression of atheromatous plaque is achievable?
Nevertheless the hypothesis seems to say very little about atheroma plaque regression.

Well, under point 14 it says, quote:"Ascorbate reduces existing atherosclerotic deposits and thereby decreases the risk for myocardial infarction and stroke", unquote.
It can´t get any more precise than this, as I see it?

I very much appreciated the info. about Salvestrol though, in the article linked to above, to the extent that I ordered the book...Thanx! :D
Salvestrol sounds almost like another, more "scientific" name for the nowadays outdated vitamin P.
Last edited by studentroland on Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:39 am, edited 10 times in total.

exitium
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#65  Post by exitium » Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:37 am

Serdna wrote:
tjohnson_nb wrote:Have you heard of Dr. Sydney Bush? http://www.whale.to/a/bush_h.html
He claims to have seen reversal of deposits in blood vessels in the eye.

Yes, I had read it before his web disappeared. Nevertheless the progression/regression of peripheral plaque may or may not imply a progression/regression of coronary artery plaque. Take a look at Carotid Artery Ultrasound and Prediction of Cardiovascular Risk at page 7 of William R.Ware's research report.


Im not real sure what the article in the link has to do with halting/reversing plaque. It talks about the use of cIMT being used as a marker and how its not accurately predicting the future cardiovascular events. However if your using that as a means to disprove Pauling therapies ability to reverse plaque your kind of comparing apples and oranges. First, reversing plaque is whats being questioned, not the reduced risk of cardiovascular events.

Furthermore the article posted references a study done on 16 other studies. It doesnt appear to take into account the method at which cIMT regression was obtained which is a very important piece of data since so many drugs simply trade one symptom for another problem often with more dire consequences as the original problem it was meant to treat. So, while cIMT may not be an accurate marker in terms of reducing the chance of cardiovascular events in those on various prescriptions drugs, it doesnt accurately convey that cIMT lowered by the Pauling therapy in the absence of prescriptions isnt an accurate marker either.

At the end of the day, the only way doubters are going to really disprove PT is by the same method proponents are going to prove PT and thats a specific study using PT.

Until that happens each of us is going to have to use our own judgement and decide if its worth trying based on what we know and can learn. For me, as an athletic individual, after just 2 weeks on the pauling therapy I have significantly reduced afib, many aches and pains (tendonitis etc) have subsided greatly or disappeared, my daily HRV numbers are improving and I seem to recover faster between bouts of high output exercises in the gym. So it seems to be offering me noticeable benefits that are worth the cost of a few supplements.

Serdna
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:25 pm
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#66  Post by Serdna » Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:22 am

studentroland wrote:
Take a look at Carotid Artery Ultrasound and Prediction of Cardiovascular Risk at page 7

Yes, I did...and it says nothing whatsoever concerning "progression/regression" of plaque, but talks mainly about the uselessness of the diagnosting-method using relative thickness of arterywalls (cIMT) as an indicator of cardiovascular events...to contrast this no-good method-of-diagnose, he says that, quote:"It is well known that Coronary Artery Calcium Score (CACS) is directly and strongly related to the risk of coronary events", unquote.
exitium wrote:Im not real sure what the article in the link has to do with halting/reversing plaque.
My fault! Yes, I wasn't remembering it correctly. So I don't know if atheroma reversal in retina arteries is going to correlate with reversal in coronary ones. I would much prefer direct evidence of plaque reversal with coronary artery calcium score data in a series case like Dr. Davis' one though.

studentroland wrote:In Pauling/Rath´s/Stone´s time-perspective of evolution and AA-supplementation, we´re all dealing with a genetic condition named Hypoascorbemia without any cure in forseeable sight, only control/management of the multitude possible outcomes following a lack of control brings, is possible to achieve...
Well, I think that part (regarding coronary plaque at least) has clearly being falsified by reversal cases in the Track Your Plaque group without vitamin C megadoses. Hypoascorbemia is not a disease. It must have supposed a survival advantage in the past. I side in this subject with late Dami Zucić. Not that we cannot take advantage of megadoses of vitamin C though.

studentroland wrote:So, by this way of reasoning, reversal of CVD is possible to achieve using Dr. Davis 3-point approach, and if one adds to this regimen the PT, it sounds to me as if elimination of risk for CVD, reversal of CHD in combination with regression of atheromatous plaque is achievable?
Perhaps. Nevertheless they previously included vitamin C and they didn't see any contribution for plaque regression. It seems they were aware of vitamin C and arginine improving endothelial dysfunction quite a time ago though.

studentroland wrote:
Nevertheless the hypothesis seems to say very little about atheroma plaque regression.

Well, under point 14 it says, quote:"Ascorbate reduces existing atherosclerotic deposits and thereby decreases the risk for myocardial infarction and stroke", unquote.
It can´t get any more precise than this, as I see it?
Well, it only stands on "The metabolic upregulation of HDL synthesis by ascorbate became an important mechanism to reverse and decrease existing lipid deposits in the vascular wall" (point 8 ) as further as I can see. Although it seems that HDL blood level and ascorbic acid one are correlated (I can't access reference 12th), it seems to be a low correlation value one (something like 0.16). Reference 13th is not about coronary arteries plaque regression but femoral and popliteal. There seems to be more powerful strategies to increase HDL, including vitamin D.

studentroland wrote:I very much appreciated the info. about Salvestrol though, in the article linked to above, to the extent that I ordered the book...Thanx! :D
You're welcome!

tjohnson_nb
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:03 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#67  Post by tjohnson_nb » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:29 am

Is PT supposed to address calcified deposits in blood vessels? I was under the impression that it was to prevent and dissolve lp(a) deposits.
'Always' and 'never' are 2 words you should always remember never to use.

exitium
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#68  Post by exitium » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:39 am

tjohnson_nb wrote:Is PT supposed to address calcified deposits in blood vessels? I was under the impression that it was to prevent and dissolve lp(a) deposits.


My understanding is that calcification happens over the LP(a) deposits after a period of time. Dr Bush reported that he has found evidence that even calcified deposits could be broken down with high dose vitamin C over the course of 2 years.

tjohnson_nb
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:03 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#69  Post by tjohnson_nb » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:53 am

studentroland wrote:
Why does anything of these matter? Because the scientific method as brilliantly formalized by Popper needs scientists to design experiments focused into falsify their hypothesis. I am not aware of any of this kind for the unified hypothesis of cardiovascular disease.

I find this an interesting way of reasoning, because I don´t yet know how to deal with this kind of reasoning other than neglect it and focus elsewhere...however...since it still is interesting to me to come up with a logical way of remembering why scientists don´t design experiments to falsify the "unified hypothesis of cardiovascular disease", I first had to find out what it was, and I wound up here.
On this web-site a bit down, the answer given to the question "why doesn´t scientists design experiments to falsify the 'unified hypothesis of cardiovascular disease'", is given as:
The method for reversing heart disease invented by Linus Pauling does not require a doctor.

I´m not sure whether "scientists" and "doctors" counts as synonymous in this case, so I have to come up with another line of reasoning...by looking here, I learned that:
For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan.

So, by this way of reasoning, it is impossible to verify Paulings hypothesis due to the "problem of induction", and I can´t come up with a way to falsify the hypothesis...yet...since the paper describing the hypothesis is so long... then again, perhaps medicine isn´t even a pure science of it´s own in the first place, with hypotheses in need of falsifications...but applied science, as medical historian Jan Hendersson points out here, and perhaps this distinction didn´t even exist "back-in-the-day" when Linus Pauling and Mathias Rath formulated their hypothesis?


We are here discussing epistemology, which is very interesting. What Popper said boils down to this - if, in the application of a theory, there is no possibility of observing a predicted outcome or not, then the theory is more or less just of academic interest. That does not exclude the possibility that someday observations will be possible. :)
'Always' and 'never' are 2 words you should always remember never to use.

studentroland
Vitamin C Master
Vitamin C Master
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:27 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#70  Post by studentroland » Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:29 pm

I would much prefer direct evidence of plaque reversal with coronary artery calcium score data

What do you think about this one then?
Well, I think that part --- has clearly being falsified

I won´t go down into too minute details in this thread...as I see it, either an entire hypothesis is falsified, or not...I don´t by that parts of a hypothesis can be falsified, whereas other parts of it are not...this way of reasoning becomes too complicated for me... :roll:
Hypoascorbemia is not a disease.

Some say it is...whether it is or not depends on what one believes/thinks, which only reinforces my growing conviction that modern medicine can be compared with a religion...
Well, it only stands on --- (point 8 )

Which in turn relies on point 1: . CVD is the direct consequence of the inability for endogenous ascorbate production in man in combination with low dietary ascorbate intake.
There seems to be more powerful strategies to increase HDL, including vitamin D.

You´re probably right that it does...a combination of vitamin/mineral-approaches seems to my undiagnosed, nonprofessional layman-biased perspective as a reasonable avenue to proceed for concerned individuals when dealing with CVD, CHD and atheromas...perhaps the vitamin-and-mineral composition of this study can provide a meaningful solution?

Serdna
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:25 pm
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#71  Post by Serdna » Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:17 am

tjohnson_nb wrote:We are here discussing epistemology, which is very interesting. What Popper said boils down to this - if, in the application of a theory, there is no possibility of observing a predicted outcome or not, then the theory is more or less just of academic interest. That does not exclude the possibility that someday observations will be possible. :)
I do think that Popper's epistemology should be applied to medicine, hence to orthomolecular medicine too.

studentroland wrote:I won´t go down into too minute details in this thread...as I see it, either an entire hypothesis is falsified, or not...I don´t by that parts of a hypothesis can be falsified, whereas other parts of it are not...this way of reasoning becomes too complicated for me... :roll:
For me any one of those points is an hypothesis. I see it just like a compendium.

studentroland wrote:Some say it is...whether it is or not depends on what one believes/thinks, which only reinforces my growing conviction that modern medicine can be compared with a religion...
You should realize that vertebrates before some fresh water ones developed ascorbic acid capable kidneys were all hypoascorbemic. As I have pointed out elsewhere it doesn't preclude ascorbic acid supplementation having positive effects. It seems to me that labeling all of us (and them) as hypoascorbemic is a little exaggerated. My point is that I think that we should be able to approach optimal health without daily megadoses. Not that I am going to lower my 3g/day dose.

studentroland wrote:You´re probably right that it does...a combination of vitamin/mineral-approaches seems to my undiagnosed, nonprofessional layman-biased perspective as a reasonable avenue to proceed for concerned individuals when dealing with CVD, CHD and atheromas...perhaps the vitamin-and-mineral composition of this study can provide a meaningful solution?
Thanks for the link. Well, it seems to me that Dr. Rath and Niedzwiecki included everything they think of. I think that Track Your Plaque group experience supersedes it, focusing on vitamin D and low carb. Nevertheless I take benfotiamine every day and a high dose B complex twice a week.

studentroland
Vitamin C Master
Vitamin C Master
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:27 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#72  Post by studentroland » Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:16 am

You should realize that vertebrates before some fresh water ones developed ascorbic acid capable kidneys were all hypoascorbemic.

Well, instead of realizing what you propose :wink: , I choose to discover and become aware of what humans think they know about times gone by in the context of evolution and science...(as opposed to religion, for example) So, having said this, before I proceed, with all due respect I feel the urge to correct your spelling...the above quote should IMO say:"---before some fresh water ones developed ascorbic acid-PRODUCING capable kidneys---"
or perhaps:"---before some fresh water ones developed kidneys capable OF PRODUCING ascorbic acid ---" to make sense (to me) ... :mrgreen:
Anyway...you see a hypothesis as a compendium... I see it as a book...I can be cool with that...
It seems to me that labeling all of us (and them) as hypoascorbemic is a little exaggerated.

Well, this suggests to me that you haven´t (yet?) grasped the concept of evolution to the point where you can distinguish between physiological workings in animal life before and after endogenous production of AA came about...so try to explain to me if you will, or link to someone who with scientific logic can, how an animal living say 5 million years before the advent of endogenous AA-production (in the kidneys, or where-ever) could be labeled as being hypoascorbemic, when it´s specie originated before, and was alive at a time when there still was no internal animal-production of ascorbate going on at all in any animal existing on the planet... :?: ... and some of these creatures continues to exist to this day with this same physiology, although many other animals who did evolve the mechanism of internal ascorbate-production nowadays outnumber them and exist parallell to them...
Noone I´ve heard of so far thinks or says that animals who are naturally, as opposed to genetically impaired, uncapable of endogenously produce Ascorbic Acid are hypoascorbemic...... :?:
My point is that I think that we should be able to approach optimal health without daily megadoses.

Well, if you exclude the word "optimal" I´ll agree with you... :)
I take benfotiamine every day

Well, here´s where we bifurcate into two similar but slightly different belief-systems...I think/believe that this supplementation is good for you, and I have no problem with you taking it, on the contrary, feel free ...to me, on the other hand, it sounds as a synthetical substance, and since I´m biased towards "natural", or perhaps "organic" substances as far as possible, (AA is an exception) I go for e.g. whole grains instead, which also contains B-vitamins...
So, we differ in some minute ways of thinking/believing, and agree in a whole lot of others, right? It´s inevitable given that we´re all unique in our own respects...you supplement with Benfotiamine, I eat whole grains...no big deal compared with issues where we, hopefully? agree, concerning e.g. the detrimental health-aspects of habitual over-consumption of alcohol, smoking, culturally maintained white sugar-eating, fluoridated tapwater, mecury-amalgams or to grapple with cancer, as I see it. :wink:
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention the impact of the vaccine-industry, which according to Teresa Forcades, a Spanish nun, have managed to lobby the UN into changing their policies as to what constitutes a pandemic...so that it financially benefits the vaccine-industry...I assume we both agree that this is morally speaking the wrong outcome to strive for?

VitaWoods
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#73  Post by VitaWoods » Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:20 pm

New question to an old thread...

If I'm just in adding L- Lysine for the first time and I'm already taking at least 10mg of C at day, should I start with 5grams a day, or work my way up?

Also, will this help blood pressure. Mine is high. 145 to 160 /85 to 105 at any given time. I've been diagnosed with lyme and I'm quite sure that's not helping. I have low pulse as well sometimes into the 30s usually around 55. Since I'm 63 and not an athlete, that's not good either. I took lisopril for a few months but it seemed to do very little.

Thoughts?

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#74  Post by ofonorow » Thu Feb 04, 2016 7:44 am

The general answer to your question is that it is always prudent to work dosages up (and down) and see how your body reacts. If there is no apparent reaction, then slowly increase.

However, I remember the case of Jeff Fenlason (also related in our book and his story is posted on the web). A veteran, he was dying of cardiovascular disease. He was on his death bed, family drove in, and he wasn't expected to live the night. He survived, and got the idea to search the Internet. We spoke, and he decided on his own to go up to something like 14 grams of vitamin C (and a lot of lysine too) that day. This instant high dosage prompted one of the more spectacular "miracle-like" recoveries that I am aware of. (This doesn't mean it is right for everyone, but that in one case of a severely ill CVD patient near death, there is apparently no harm from going straight to the maximum dosage :D Thank you Linus Pauling and associates.)

Unfortunately, Jeff's case also illustrates the common thread that people feeling "cured" forget what got them there, stop the therapy. He became absolutely well, and years later, he even fell in love with and married a very young woman (perhaps 16 years old, he in his sixties) so that may have something to do with his abrupt demise, but I know that once people feel cured, they tend to drop the vitamin C as no longer needed.
Owen R. Fonorow
HeartCURE.Info
American Scientist's Invention Could Prevent 350,000 Heart Bypass Operations a year

ardia
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Vit c, lysine or proline for most benefit?

Post Number:#75  Post by ardia » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:22 pm

Did he drop off the map or did you actually get word that he died? If so, what was the eventual cause?


Return to “Heart Disease: Linus Pauling's Vitamin C/Lysine Therapy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests