Dear Friends, 

I was discussing the fluoride issue with Dr. Garry Gordon, a doctor I am iterviewing for my new book.  Last fall, a new study in the Journal of American Dental Association reported that fluoride is actually bad for teeth.  Of course, those of us who understand it is a toxin already know that - but now the CDC and AMA say that this recent study shows intake of fluoride during the first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and they now warn against using fluoridated water in infant formula.   

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is of a similar opinion. According to their website: "Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing ... enamel fluorosis." 

Sources:   Journal of the American Dental Association;October 14, 2010;  141(10):1190-1201;CDC May 28, 2010 

Fluorosis causes spotting on teeth, and in severe cases can cause orange or brown mottling of the teeth.  Sadly, that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the damage that can be caused by fluoride.  In my opinion, these agencies who have been telling us it's safe for so long can't completely back track and announce, "Whoops! That toxic waste will kill you!"  So instead they find a gentle way to let us know it's best to avoid with the most vulnerable, like infants. 

Here is Dr. Gordon's response. 

Suzanne,  

Fluorine is very toxic for many patients and the dangers go far beyond the dental fluorosis issue, but at least that alone suggests proof that over 30% examined children have excessive fluorine already. We all need to know that fluorine is another mistake made by governmental agencies and now we even have CDC and ADA admitting that there are issues about fluorine excess showing up. 

Believe me when I tell you that ALL fluorine should be destroyed, as the toxicity goes far beyond what you have been told. For one example, please know that fluorine makes the bones look white and dense and strong but they fracture easily. This means that by the time someone is being told they have osteopenia, what is being seen is often far worse than the x-ray reveals because the fluorine we all get and almost cannot avoid is making everyone's bones appear not too bad. 

But we have new knowledge today that what matters is elimination of fractures and now we see this bone health picture gets complex but bone health is essential for longevity. FACT: bones are breaking even when the bone density appears normal; in fact bone density is a poor predictor of future fracture risk. 

The more you study this fluorine issue, the more you will see we must add this to our growing long list of reasons we are all unhealthy today compared to what we could be. That list can get very long when we include GMO foods inducing leaky gut and unleashing an epidemic of food sensitivities, along with other toxins like the mandated flame retardants now in everything, PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl esters), dangerous vaccinations, and coal burning power plants polluting everything with lead and mercury.

Fortunately, we were born with lots of resilience so we appear to handle all the above for a time, but finally all this and the other contributing factors covered in my FIGHT program all come home to roost. 

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)

Share:

Hi Friends – Please read the following post from Dr. Nick Gonzalez.  He has outlined the important developments on the recent “consumer protection” bill which would make it virtually impossible to buy supplements without a prescription.  WE NEED YOUR VOICE!  This bill does NOT protect us.  It violates our rights.  
 
 
Dear Friends:
 
I am writing to alert you of two assaults against nutritional supplements against which we all need to mobilize.  Over the years I have witnessed many serious threats to supplements proposed by members of Congress and the FDA, always presented in the guise of “consumer protection.”  Invariably the proposed legislation or regulations have been onerous, repressive, and apparently intended to eliminate or seriously curtail the availability of most nutritional products, forcing the US into a European style situation where nutritionals are either forbidden (as in Norway) or become prescription items, and as a result, to the glee of pharmaceutical companies, their drugs become the primary option.  In the past, we here in the US have been able to mobilize to stop such intrusions, such as the ill-conceived McCain bill of a year ago.  But once again, the anti-nutrition forces have organized and mobilized, in ways I have not previously seen.
 
The first threat is Senator Durbin’s noble sounding Senate bill S1310, the "Dietary Supplement Labeling Act," ostensibly prompted because of a recent episode of melatonin tainted brownies.  Senator Durbin has long been an aggressive, vocal opponent of supplements and their availability as over the counter products.  He has long supported a “strong” FDA and the pharmaceutical industry.  In any event, this bill would give the FDA a new set of powers that could easily be used to badger honorable, honest supplement manufacturers providing  legitimate and useful products.  The FDA needs no new authority in terms of labeling, because it already has enormous power to regulate additives to food, and remove harmful or dangerous supplements from the marketplace.  Furthermore, the FDA has already mandated very stringent "Good Manufacturing Practice" regulations that promote standards and require manufacturers of nutritional supplements to provide the highest quality, legitimate products to consumers.  I believe this new legislation is part of an ongoing pattern to eliminate the availability of legitimate supplements so that Americans have no choice in their health care.

Share:

Dear Friends, 

I recently posted to my friends on Facebook, asking about their sweetener of choice.  Huge response!  I get so many questions on this, I though I would give you my opinion… it’s just another one to add to group, but here’s my POV.  Some of this is based on research I have collected from the medical experts with whom I surround myself, and some is just based on my personal views.   

The pink – saccharin: This has been around since the 60s and 70s. At first everyone thought it was the miracle sugar substitute.  Then it got a “causes cancer” wrap – of course, proven and disproven depending upon the article you read or expert you consult.  It’s very concentrated.  Not a good source for baking as it does not hold up to heat and leaves an aftertaste if you use a lot of it. 

My personal opinion: Many years ago I recommended this product as an alternative to sugar (you will see references for it in my early books). I felt it was better than aspartame if you were going to use an artificial sweetener.   With the information I have today, I still think it is the least offensive of the artificial sweeteners, however, I do not use it or any artificial sweeteners. 

The blue – aspartame:  Took the spotlight from the pink in the 80s.  Again, this was the miracle NEW sweetener.  Less aftertaste, and didn’t seem to have that cancer causing issue that had freaked out so many with saccharin.  Then in the late 90s we started to see reports that maybe this artificial sweetener was dangerous as well.  There was a particularly nasty online article that took off virally - slandering aspartame (mostly from diet soda drinkers) and linking it to cancer, brain tumors, lupus, and multiple sclerosis.  Many sources say this “chain letter” is anecdotal, from anonymous sources and scientifically implausible.  Upon reading it again today, I see Dr. Russell Blaylock was quoted in it all those years ago, stating, “The ingredients stimulate the neurons of the brain to death, causing brain damage of varying degrees.”

In 2008 I interviewed Blaylock for my book, Breakthrough, and he cited two new studies by one of the biggest cancer research institutes in the world, The Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Italy. The results confirmed that aspartame breaks down in the body to formaldehyde, which breaks up the DNA and leaves the body with double-strand breaks, most associated with cancer induction. He states, “We had good evidence before that aspartame most likely produced cancer, and now we know it does for sure.” (For more information, read Breakthrough, p. 38.)

My personal opinion: I don’t use any artificial sweeteners, and certainly not this one.

Aspartame is still sold and added to over 6,000 products. The FDA does not report any safety issues. 

To read the viral piece on aspartame with the rebuttals, click here. 

The yellow – sucralose:  “Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar.” That means it’s natural, right?  Around the turn of the century, the new yellow packets became the rage (once aspartame was exposed).  One of the big benefits is that it measures just like sugar – making it easier to use in baking.  Come to find out, sucralose is made by taking a sugar molecule and adding chlorine to it. I am always shocked when I tell people this and they say, “So? What’s the problem with chlorine?” 

I interviewed Dr. Steven Hotze in Breakthrough, who states, “Toxins are the big problem. How about Splenda? It’s sucralose, which is chlorinated hydrocarbon, which is toxic. Any chlorinated hydrocarbon in the world is toxic, carcinogenic. Splenda was originally made as a pesticide-go dump it on your ant beds and come back tomorrow to see all the dead ants.”  (Breakthrough, p. 345)

My personal opinion: I don’t use any artificial sweeteners. 

Studies also show artificial sweeteners are addictive.  This addiction makes us crave more and more sweet foods and can actually cause weight gain, rather than weight loss – which is the reason most people use these products anyway.

The green – stevia:  Stevia is 100% natural, extracted from a plant in South America, it has a low glycemic index and there are no controversial reports on the health or safety of this natural sweetener.

My personal opinion: I use this product now and then, but I do not like the licorice aftertaste.  I have not had luck baking with it due to this aftertaste. It’s less offensive in coffee, but I like my coffee without sweetener anyway.

The real stuff - raw sugar, honey, white sugar: All are accepted by the body as sugar.  I use them in moderation.  I prefer honey of the three, then raw sugar, then white sugar.  All cause increases in insulin, our fat storing hormone. Controlling this hormone, so that our food is burned as fuel rather than stored as fat, is a key tenant to my weight loss plan, Sexy Forever, so I moderate my use of all of these sugars.

My personal opinion: Much better choices than artificial sweeteners, but I use them only in moderation to keep my weight and health in check.

Agave – 100% natural.  I have been using agave nectar as a low-glycemic liquid sweetener for the past five years or so.  It’s the consistency of honey, but is not supposed to spike insulin, like honey.  I really like the taste and consistency of this product.  Love it on Greek yogurt with a little cinnamon.  Now there is controversial information that the manufacturing process turns this natural sweetener into a syrup, similar to high fructose corn syrup – stating that agave nectar is actually 90% fructose.  Still, fructose is 20 on the glycemic index as opposed to sugar which is 100! 

My personal opinion: I use agave, but only organic agave to make sure there are no chemicals in the extraction process. So far I have believed this is a healthy, natural alternative to sugar or honey, with a lower glycemic index.  The recent news about the manufacturing process turning this into a product similar it high fructose corn syrup is on my radar.  I need more information.  My ears are open for the next round of research. 

The purple one - All Natural SomerSweet:  This is my signature sweetener.  It’s 100% natural.  It has taken me years to develop it.  When I first debuted original SomerSweet, I didn’t have the information I have today and it contained a very small amount of artificial sweetener.  We have since reformulated to All Natural SomerSweet which is a 100% natural product - and I couldn’t be more thrilled to have all artificial sweeteners out of my system.  Knowledge is power.  As I learn, I adjust.  And I pass along my information to you.  All Natural SomerSweet spoons into coffee tea just like sugar, but what I really love about this product is how it bakes!  I use it cup for cup in place of sugar in recipes with excellent results.  And it’s only 5 on the glycemic index so it won’t spike my insulin. Great for those on my Sexy Forever plan. 

Ingredients: All Natural SomerSweet is mostly made from inulin, which is a chicory fiber. This is a pre-biotic soluble fiber – something your body needs anyway.  It also contains erythritol – a natural substance found in pears, melons, grapes, mushrooms and wine.  While erythritol is categorized as a sugar alcohol, it has no gassy side effects. Additionally, there is a small amount of fructose found in our inulin blend, but it’s such a low amount, we still boast 0 sugars per serving.  Lastly, citrus peel extract rounds out the flavor. 

My personal opinion: Great for cold or hot drinks.  Excellent for baking. No aftertaste.  The fiber may cause you to “move” a little, but that’s a good thing! Start slowly and build your way up.   Available in individual packets or cans. 

As a special offer for my Facebook friends, enter coupon code FACEBOOK at checkout and receive 50% off your first order of All Natural SomerSweet Packets*! (limited time while supplies last).

For more information on All Natural SomerSweet, click here.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Somers          

Share:

Dear Friends,

Yesterday my ant- aging doctor, Michael Galitzer, sent me an alarming link which I am posting for all of you to read.

As you know, I first embrace alternative natural medicine before I resort to western pharmaceutical medicine.   I feel strongly that non-chemical, non- drug approaches using nature’s tools (a term frequently used by Dr. Jonathan Wright), is the healthiest and safest way to take care of my body.  For instance, if I feel that I might be getting a cold or if I am run down from travel or overwork, I go to Dr. Galitzer’s office for an IV drip of Vitamin C and it builds me up and knocks out anything that might be trying to invade.

As you will read below, the FDA is now trying to make IV Vitamin C illegal. This is just the tip of the iceberg of government control over our right to take care of our bodies.  

CLICK HERE to read and decide for yourself. If you feel outraged as I am, do yourself and the country a favor and write in protest to the FDA to stop this insanity.

Thank you,

Suzanne Somers

For more information, please visit SuzannesSomers.com.

Share:

Water fluoridation has always been a contentious issue, but it is becoming more common to hearmention of fluoride as a toxic substance in our everyday lives, and that it should be eliminated.The practice of fluoridating drinking water in North America began in 1945 ostensibly for thepurpose of reducing tooth decay, but it was initiated before proper studies had been performed to ensure the safety of ingesting fluoride over a lifetime. 

Fluoride is added to water to bring it to an arbitrary level deemed necessary for healthy teeth. But fluoride is a toxin, not a nutrient. The proof is the massive increase in irreversible dental fluorosis (white or brown spots on the teeth) in children who drank fluoridated water as babies. Fluoride is an accumulative environmental and food chain pollutant. While less than 1% of fluoridated tap water is used for drinking, we are all exposed to a fluoride in various forms from many sources,including foods and drinks cooked or processed with it, pesticide residue on non-organic produce,air pollution, dental products, and pharmaceuticals, to name a few. Fluoride accumulates in our bodies, potentially harming the unborn, growing children, the medically compromised, and seniors the most. In spite of claims by the dental industry, fluoride does not prevent tooth decay - oral health is tied to income level and nutrition, not fluoride intake. The fluoridation chemicals in the unused water go back into the environment, accumulating in land and aquatic life. 

Most health authorities suggest drinking at least eight glasses of water per day for good health. How much fluoride are you getting when you drink a glass of artificially fluoridated water? About the same as if you swallowed a pea-sized blob of toothpaste - which the label clearly tells you not to do. If it is not safe to swallow eight blobs of toothpaste with FDA-approved fluoride per day for life, or take eight pills containing this amount of fluoride, why are we told it’s OK to drink this amount of the diluted industrial waste that has never been FDA-approved for human consumption? 

Yes, we are drinking diluted industrial waste. The product used for water fluoridation is a highlyt oxic waste recovered from the air pollution scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry,as well as from other sources of industrial waste, including that from China. Wherever it issourced from, it is contaminated with lead, arsenic, and radioactive particles, among other very hazardous, accumulative contaminants. 

Increasingly in the last few decades, citizens in North America and around the world have been learning the truth about water fluoridation and many are becoming active and vocal to protect themselves and their communities. In recent years, more and more communities have been removing fluoride from their drinking water, reversing a 60 year trend. Over 2600 professionalsso far have signed a statement requesting the end of water fluoridation. This information and more facts about water fluoridation can be found on the website of the Fluoride Action Network(FAN), at www.fluoridealert.org. While there are many good fluoride opposition websites, this website is the most comprehensive non-dental and non-governmental source of scientific information on fluoride and its health effects. It has thousands of supporters, including professionals in medicine, dentistry, environmental science as well as the US EPA Union of professional workers. 

Canadian citizens can find further information about water fluoridation on the Canadian websites of http://www.waterloowatch.comand http://www.fluoridation.com. 

Another organization, the national, educational non-profit Second Look, with its program the Fluoride Toxicity Research Collaborative (FTRC) has been addressing the issue of fluoride poisoning in individuals, and is the only organization developing a system to work with people who are ill from the effects of fluoride toxicity, a still unrecognized epidemic. See:http://www.SLweb.org. People usually decide against fluoridation when they are well informed with the facts. Get the facts - protect yourself and your community.

Sincerlely,

Suzanne Somers

For more information, please visit www.SuzanneSomers.com.

Share:

A major soft drink manufacturer announced it will help kids to lead healthier lives by offering “low-calorie nutritious beverage choices” in school vending machines.  Sugar soft-drinks will be removed and replaced with a variety of beverages, including juice, plus artificially sweetened sodas, sports drinks and iced teas.  While I applaud the notion of getting rid of sugary soft drinks filled with high fructose corn syrup, the idea of replacing them with artificially sweetened drinks – especially for children – should not be called a “healthy” alternative, but rather a dangerous exposure to chemicals.   

Is over-consumption of sugar a problem in our country?  You bet.  Sugar consumption has reached astonishingly unhealthy levels, with the average American eating 160 pounds of sugar yearly (Knockout, p. 98). Not all sugar is as obvious as the amount we get in a soft drink - it is often disguised in ingredient lists or hidden in seemingly innocent food items such as crackers, condiments, and salad dressings. Our insatiable appetite for sugar has far-reaching toxic implications for our health. There is an especially alarming link between sugar consumption and the cancer epidemic.

According to Dr. Russell Blaylock, an oncologist, brain surgeon, and neuroscientist, sugar directly fuels cancer cell growth (Knockout, p. 155-156). Dr. Michael Galitzer expands on this point by explaining that while healthy cells utilize oxygen to create energy, cancer cells create energy and thrive by fermenting sugar (Knockout, p. 215). Cristiana Paul, M.S., a certified nutritionist, explains that high blood sugar is taken in by precancerous cells causing them to multiply faster than they would if less sugar was available. Sugar also causes a damaging spike in the hormone insulin. The excess insulin stimulates cell growth, cell division, and the proliferation of cancerous cells (Knockout, p. 236). While these experts agree it is imperative for cancer patients to completely remove sugar from their diet, it is also imperative for healthy individuals to do the same in order to reduce the risk of cancer.

Reduce the sugar and provide healthier alternatives... yes, I agree.  But diet sodas, teas and sports drinks?  Really? Chemically produced artificial sweeteners are not a healthy alternative for sugar!  Dr. Blaylock cites a recent study from one of the biggest cancer research institutes in the world, The Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Italy. They tested aspartame on the largest number of rats ever and found it increases cancer incidence from doses equivalent to drinking diet sodas.  It also showed an increase specifically in lymphoma, leukemia, breast cancer, and brain cancer.  And from previous studies, Dr. Blaylock cites neurological brain damage from aspartame (Breakthrough, p.192).   Research by Dr. Richard Wurtman, a physician-researcher at MIT, demonstrated that aspartame is not only a neurological toxin, but it also increases appetite. So artificial sweeteners derived from chemicals can actually contribute to weight gain (Knockout, p. 98).

Why should we choose between two types of poison; sugar or artificial sweeteners?  And why would anyone even consider placing either of these poisons into a vending machine for our children to consume?  Choose water!  Milk!  Unsweetened juice!  Or if you want something sweet, choose stevia, agave, or an All Natural Sweetener.    

Regards, 

Suzanne Somers

For more information, please visit www.SuzanneSomers.com.

Share:

Senator McCain Files New Bill That Attacks Your Access to Supplements and Repeals Key Sections of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act

TAKE ACTION - TELL YOUR SENATOR NOT TO CO-SPONSOR THIS BILL

Senator McCain’s bill is called The Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA). It would repeal key sections of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). DSHEA protects supplements if 1) they are food products that have been in the food supply and not chemically altered or 2) if they were sold as supplements prior to 1994, the year that DSHEA was passed. If a supplement fits one of these two descriptions, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot arbitrarily ban it or reclassify it as a drug.

These protections are far from perfect. They discourage companies from developing new forms of supplements. New supplements may be arbitrarily banned by the FDA or adopted by drug companies in a way that precludes their further sale as supplements.

McCain’s bill would wipe out even the minimal protections contained in DSHEA. It would give the FDA full discretion and power to compile a discreet list of supplements allowed to remain on the market while banning all others.

The FDA will like this because it believes that it can more easily control a few industry giants. But isn’t it more likely that the industry giants will eventually gain control over the FDA?

The FDA is already misusing the adverse event reporting process that exists. Drugs rack up thousands of adverse event reports without any action. Just recently, the FDA yanked from the market a supplement product based on just a couple of alleged adverse event reports without even allowing the company (an old and respected firm) to provide any counter-evidence or counter-argument.

The bill also allows the FDA to yank a product (at the company’s expense) if there is a “reasonable probability” that it is “adulterated” or “misbranded”. Let’s remember that “adulterated” could mean there is a minor record keeping error on the producer’s part and “misbranded” can mean that the producer simply tells the truth about the product. An “adulterated” and “misbranded” supplement in Orwellian FDA speak may actually be both completely safe and effective.

TAKE ACTION

McCain’s Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA) appears to be supported by the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) which is funded by major league sports teams including baseball, football and others. The recent suspensions of NFL and other professional sports figures is much in the news, and the goal of the sports industry appears to be to shift the spotlight from their players to the supplements industry. In his comments, Senator McCain cited six NFL players recently suspended for testing positive for banned substances and purportedly exposed to these substances through dietary supplements.

The problem here of course is one of illegal sale and use of steroids. So why dismantle the supplement industry in order to control already illegal substances?

The FDA currently has complete and total authority to stop illegal steroids and, more broadly, to regulate dietary supplements. If the agency were doing its job, it could and would have prevented the sale of illegal steroids. The answer to this problem is not to give FDA more power. The Agency simply needs to do its job.

TAKE ACTION

Why would a bill be offered to solve an illegal steroid problem that does not really address the steroid problem but instead gives the FDA complete and arbitrary control over all supplements? The answer is simple.

Why not simply require that supplements be brought through the FDA’s drug approval process? Wouldn’t that create a level playing field?

That is probably the argument that Senator McCain has been sold. But it is a completely false argument. The FDA drug approval process costs as much as a billion dollars. It is not economically feasible to spend such vast sums on substances that are not protected by patent, and natural substances cannot legally be patented.

Senator McCain has no doubt offered this bill in good faith. But he has been sold a bill of goods by special interests. And he has been naïve enough not to know that he is being used.

TAKE ACTION

If McCain’s bill passes, we can look to Europe for a snapshot of what we may be in for: EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, has sharply reduced the list of available supplements and is in process of reducing potencies to ridiculous levels, such as less beta carotene than can be found in half of a large carrot. Europeans already look to the US to obtain their dietary supplements. If this bill passes, where will we obtain ours?

Gretchen DuBeau
Legal Director, Alliance for Natural Health Int.
Executive Director, ANH-USA

Sincerely,

Suzanne Somers

For more information, please visit www.SuzanneSomers.com.

Share:

I was watching my favorite show, 60 Minutes, last Sunday and they had a segment on Resveratrol.  

Resveratrol is found in grape skins – it’s a plant extract that has shown dramatic effects for maintaining optimal health.  It’s found naturally in red wine – and provides the link supporting the notion that red wine, in moderation, has health benefits.  In simple terms, there’s something powerful in the Resveratrol molecule.  It turns on a gene called SIR-1 that makes our bodies rev up our defenses to protect us from disease.  I see it as ninja warriors sitting at the entrance saying, “No way!”  In fact, 60 Minutes noted a daily dose of Resveratrol could stave off age-related illnesses and increase life span by a decade or more!  I was happy to see this report getting out in mainstream media.  Last year, I wrote about Resveratrol in several of the chapters of Breakthrough, since many of the anti-aging doctors and professionals brought it up as an important daily supplement in anti-aging medicine and preventative care (Chapter 3 – Dr. Ron Rothenberg, Chapter 5 – Bill Falloon, Chapter 14 – Dr. Russell Blaylock, Chapter 19 – Dr. Prudence Hall, Chapter 28 – Christiana Paul).  

HERE’S WHAT SHOCKED ME ABOUT THE 60 MINUTES REPORT…

Morley Safer:

Dr. Westphal says we all may soon be taking a drug that just might beat the clock, a simple pill that could delay the inevitable. "Our goal is to prevent and forestall many of the diseases that strike us as we reach 50, 60, and 70. All with one pill."

Convinced they were on the verge of a major scientific breakthrough, Sinclair and Westphal launched Sirtris, a Cambridge, Mass. research company. They, along with a handful of other cutting-edge biotech companies, are developing resveratrol-based drugs that they believe zero-in on the longevity gene.

"The important news here is not that we'd found something in red wine. The important thing is that we passed a milestone where we can now make drugs based on this knowledge and we can potentially slow down aging itself," Sinclair explains.

My friends, you do not need to wait until the pharmaceutical companies create a synthetic replica of something that already exists and is readily available!  Resveratrol is available as a supplement now.  Of course, since it’s natural, your insurance will not cover the cost.  As soon as these scientists create the synthetic version it will be “the new essential drug,” it will cost exponentially more, and insurance will cover it.  Is this crazy or what????

I take Resveratrol every day.  You do not need to wait for the scientists to create a drug based on the same ingredients, then patent that drug and tell you it’s more effective than the natural plant extract that already exists.  

Well, 60 Minutes, you are still my favorite show, but you only got part of this story correct!   
 
Sincerely,

Suzanne Somers

Visit me at SuzanneSomers.com!

Share: