Total Quackery – Austria’s Graz University “Study”

Image

Austria’s Graz University’s recent “study” http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088278&representation=PDF is said to show vegetarians are unhealthier than meat eaters.

You can read about it here, many of the comments are good: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vegetarians-are-less-healthy-and-have-a-lower-quality-of-life-than-meateaters-scientists-say-9236340.html

But what’s the real story?

From the supposed study, which was really only a survey of self-proclaimed diet followers:

“15,474 individuals, aged 15 years and older, were questioned in computer-assisted personal interviews…” “…only 2.2% of all participants consumed a vegetarian diet…”

Most of those “vegetarians” (343) consumed milk & eggs and many ate fish. Less than 10% (31) of the vegetarian group were vegans, as vegans were only 0.2% of the total survey.

Further to show the unscientific nature of the “study,” three meat eaters’ results were lumped in with each “vegetarian’s” results for some bizarre reason, because the number of “vegetarians” was so tiny. So the study shows virtually nothing about vegans, or vegetarians for that matter. It only shows huge animal-ag bias and pseudoscience, conducted, paid for, published, and eagerly grasped onto and touted as real by the media, animal ag interests, and their consumer puppets.

435202044_640

From the study, except for the (numbers) after %:

“While 0.2% (31) of the interviewees were pure vegetarians (57.7% female), 0.8% (124) reported to be vegetarians consuming milk and eggs (77.3% female), and 1.2% (186) to be vegetarians consuming fish and/or eggs and milk (76.7% female). 23.6% (3,651) reported to combine a carnivorous diet with lots of fruits and vegetables (67.2% female), 48.5% (7,505) to eat a carnivorous diet less rich in meat (60.8% female), and 25.7% (3,977) a carnivorous diet rich in meat (30.1% female)…

“Since the three vegetarian diet groups included a rather small number of persons (N = 343), they were analyzed as one dietary habit group. Moreover, since the vegetarian group was the smallest, we decided to match each of the vegetarians (1) with an individual of each other dietary habit group (carnivorous diet rich in fruits and vegetables (2), carnivorous diet less rich in meat (3) and a carnivorous rich in meat (4)).”

So, 31 vegans out of a group of 15,474 people, nearly 100% of whom eat animal products regularly, are said to give real information about vegan or vegetarian lifestyles in some way.

Science? No. This is madness, showing the utter desperation of meat industry interests in the face of veganism becoming more obviously a very healthy and humane way to live and gaining in popularity.

Vegan-Food-Pyramid-New

So please, keep being vegan, or go vegan, and stay free of fear-mongering and bogus “research” meant to keep the slaughterhouses running, the blood flowing, the medical coffers brimming, and the animal product industries happy.

Let’s all stop believing in lies.

 

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Total Quackery – Austria’s Graz University “Study”

  1. Hilarious when uneducated idealogues try to critique the work of career scientists with no political axe to grind. The only quackery to be found is in this lame blog. “Blame It On Zealotry.”

    • You, a lawyer, couldn’t find even one fact in error in this post, thus your strange little attack. Shame on you. It’s truly hilarious (albeit sad as well) when a supposed science advocate believes a glaringly and ridiculously unscientific “study” such as the one exposed here.

      • Your response cracked me up. What’s glaringly and ridiculously obvious is the lack of understanding of the cross sectional study. And why do vegans love to cite the China Study which is also an observational study with similar inherent problems that you call “unscientific”. LOL.

        Aside from getting most of the facts wrong, your last three paragraphs are pure unsubstantiated rants.

        • The facts are what they are, and none of your nasty manipulative remarks can change any of it. Point out even one “wrong fact,” if you can. But no, you throw out ad homenims instead…because that’s all you have. You call the fiasco described in this article a “cross-sectional study,” which destroys your credibility. And I never quote the China Study, as its main author (Campbell) is a vivisector, and I’m not taught anything by vivisectors, except for the fact that they are sociopaths. And I will state my own views in my own blog… shocking and appalling, isn’t it?

              • Yes, and some of the “cutting” is even by proxy as it were. For example the calming effects of serotonin have been researched by giving various doses of it to rats which were deemed either “natural” or induced killers, then letting them loose on mice and seeing how many they killed (inks if you google *serotonin rats kill mice*). Cruelty beyond description, indeed…

                • The rat/mouse experiment is like dogfighting, but with a phony studious air attached. The goals of such enterprises are, of course: funding, “fame” through publication and media attention, and continually more such “research” being “needed.” People beat all…including abused, caged rats…as far as being disgustingly ruthless. I’d always suspected as a child that there were some people like “researchers” totally lacking conscience & empathy; but was fully awakened to the fact of vivisection, and that we are all forced to fund it, in 1984-85 through the ALF raid on University of Pennsylvania and the media exposé on their baboon head injury lab. Devastating, life changing. Hopefully the need for this sad fight ends soon. What a species.

  2. I’m sorry, but the article is formally correct. What’s the problem about the stats they used?
    Moreover, the study clearly refers to “Austrian” people, which is not the same thing as “pick N people all around the world”.
    To make you understand, in Italy we’ve many diseases related to the thyroid, because here is endemic, thus we’re suggested to add up Iodine (mostly iodized-salt). However, this Iodine addition is worth *JUST* for people having such a disease, not for everyone!
    That said, Austria is mostly a mountain shaped country, with a long history of small isolated-villages, where there was very-few or not-at-all possibility to have corn or so. Grass, instead, was a resource always available, as well as animals, which eat it. I believe such a people have an “historical habit” to eat animal-derived food (together with vegetables), which might involve diseases once dramatically changed.
    As for me, the only problem is the humans (we are actually TOO MANY), and the excessive industrialization (which involves the vegetable food as well).

    • The growing number of vegans in the world shows that the habit of exploiting and slaughtering the innocent is slowly changing, thank goodness. But it needs to go faster. Vegans have gone from 1% of USA’s population about 10 years ago to about 7% now. Many more people are “part time” vegetarians, who’ve proven to mostly be on their way to being vegan. Our numbers are still small, but those who stay with it are quality numbers.
      No need for you to be sorry, except that it appears you didn’t read my post or really look at the study (here it is in PDF downloading format: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088278&representation=PDF), and that you just wanted to defend eating animal products? Okay, have at it, but just inform yourself first, and be honest. About this study you seem to believe in: 0.2% of the participants were self-described vegans being surveyed; 0.2% = two tenths of one percent. That is almost zero vegans, and hearsay as well. May as well have been “scientific” info taken from a rumor mill. But thanks for weighing in anyways. You’re far nicer than most meat defenders.
      PS: I’m half Italian and I love Italy, greatest anti-vivisection activists in the world, lots of vegans too 🙂

      • Nature is nature: humans are not aliens. As the lion eats the gazelle, the shark eats smaller fishes, the whale eats plancton, the human is a bit “better” (if you like this term), because eats both vegetables and animal-derived food. That is, the “human” animal has became better than other species just because its adaption throughout thousands of years.
        So, I really don’t think an human is “guilty” because eats a fish or a chicken, because along this way should be guilty millions of other non-human animals living in our world.
        However, I’m *really* convinced that -yes- the human is guilty because (1) the far too high industrialization and (2) the huge WASTE of food (whatever it is). I blaming far more an human for throwing valuable food (vegetable as well) into a can, whereas there are millions of people dying for NOT having it!
        By the way, who said the plants are not suffering when you “kill” them? If you scratch a tree, it secretes the resin, and similarly that’s what happens to you, when you’re scratching your skin. Suffering/pain is an “alarm” for reacting, and avoiding the cause of pain. There are lots of examples where the plants “react”, so why they shouldn’t feel “pain” once slaughtered?
        Plants are living subjects, not objects!…Who says the plants feel no pain, is viewing the environment from a anthropocentric point!
        I read the article and also your post. I believe you’re criticizing the study because they put vegans and vegetarians into the same bucket…if we begin to create a different set for every single “style-of-life”, that would be impossible even to *think* to make a study!
        The study is formally correct (at least statistically). They only points that an “extremist-way” of living is not the best choice. As “extremistic”, it means every corner: so even too much animal proteins!
        Again, I like some of your points of view, because you (as many others) are reacting to the excessive industrialization, which actually lead us to the total eclipse: not just because I drink a cup of milk!
        Happy to read that you’re half Italian! As Italian too, I strongly defend our Mediterranean diet, which is maybe the best in the world!…(the defense isn’t easy at all, because lots of “foreign” pseudo-food is invading our country!)

        • You and I will never agree on all that unless you’re to change your mind. The plant pain thing really makes no sense to me and others who clearly see the very meaningful differences between sentient, mobile animals and non-sentient, immobile vegetation. The Absurdity of Plant Pain article explains that clearly here: http://tabish.freeshell.org/animals/plantpain.html

          And saying vegetarians can represent vegans is just incorrect. Vegetarians eat lots of eggs and animal milk products, vegans eat none, and I for one experienced the great health benefits of eliminating dairy and eggs from my diet after being vegetarian for a long time and unhealthy. That “glass of milk” you believe is so innocuous is really the result of extreme animal abuse too…veal calves alone are enough to prove that to someone who’s open to a new way of seeing things. You appear not to be, so there may be no point in continuing to talk here.

          The whole purpose of predation in the natural order is for population control and sharpening of the senses and skills of both predator and prey, for the strongest to survive and evolve for the better, to keep nature thriving. Our species’ animal farming, exploitation and killing have absolutely nothing to do with that natural order and are only a bad habit grown huge, due to traditions. We need to be better than this, and many more people are beginning to see things differently now, to see the “personhood” of animals and that they’re not just things to be used and killed. People are outraged by animal cruelty done for “fun,” and are beginning to see that what’s considered legal abuse is just as wrong.

          We’re human beings after all, capable of creating anything we want, even lab-grown meat for people who really cannot give up that taste. So using “the way things have always been done” as a reason for continuing to practice abuse and cruelty upon obviously sentient lives just doesn’t have any real merit. We can innovate, we can enjoy absolutely delicious plant foods and be all the healthier for it too. No animals need to be confined, abused and slaughtered to feed us or for any other reason. If we want those changes. And we certainly should want those changes.

          Thanks for the photos too, very nice. My ancestors were from Reggio di Calabria, southern Italians, although they were pretty light complected. Thanks again for expressing your thoughts here, even though we disagree strongly. Again, I love those Italian vegans and animal activists! Here’s a great food page: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-recipe/vegan-italian-recipes-that-will-blow-your-mind-25/ Google “Italian vegans” and see how great your people are 🙂 If I do travel to Italy I will contact you for those tips, thanks.

          • Well none can deny that industrialization and mass production for profit has led to quite a waste of food that could be used to feed people who are simply starving to death in certain countries. However to confuse that with the idea that we shouldn’t use meat or have slaughterhouses is simply wrong. You are simply trying to pass around your moral code preaching to people who are equally entitled to having a different moral code as you, provided they are not harming others.

            From what you mentioned you seem to be of the idea that we shouldn’t vaccinate kids too. You are a DANGER to the rest of us when you don’t vaccinate your child cause ur child then can potentially (and statistically will ) turn into a host for many viruses that get a better chance to evolve and harm even the children of other people. Somehow you seem to be of the opinion that ”NATURAL” is better … Well let me tell you what ELSE is natural… polyo, tuberculosis and lots of other diseases be it viruses or fungi. Maybe we shouldn’t develop cures too ?

            Now to your eating habits. I am okay with you being vegan. It is your right and your body is your own. However keep in mind that not everyone can eat fruits and vegetables. I for example happen to be diabetic so many fruits a day or certain vegetables are off limits to me or I ll die young. There must be a reason doctors gave me a diet with equal portions of meat AND vegetables or do u really think that doctors are also part of the HUGE “CONSUME_ANIMALS” conspiracy?

            To your ethical restraints. I understand and share most of them. I hate seeing any ”living” organism being tortured. I am against inhumane executions of these animals. I also need to eat and lab meat is neither as good or tested as ”natural” meat nor is as cheap to produce I am sure which can ultimately be a prohibiting factor to feeding a bigger portion of the population.

            Some food for thought… At least to me… when a forest is being burned on purpose by arsons I DO feel sorry for the trees as much as the living organisms in/on the trees. I often wish that such arsons could be put to the fire. To me at the time trees ARE living and they ”feel”. You see morals are personal and it is also something we have developed. None gave them to us or rather none started them. They COULD be our mechanism of survival as in providing better chances for the population to thrive or maintaining our habitat so we survive longer , or be an impediment at times if they lose their focus and turn into something harmful (example here would be commiting seppuku in japan(in the past) for reasons deemed unworthy in most other societies and for the most trivial reasons).

            As a scientist myself… I am not going to impose my ideas on anyone unless their ideas hurts me. However you can rest assured I will do my best to try and convince them using science or reasonable arguments on why I think my opinion is better if it is and not sentimental things , Or be persuaded by theirs IF they can prove to me the superiority of their ideas.

            As for the study … I cannot be swayed either way. You make assumptions that make it potentially wrong and ignore every chance that it might be correct. You use your personal experience to pick your opinion and you are not being objective. Anyone who takes it as 100% correct is the same as you. Keep in mind there’s not only Black and White… there’s also gray in everything. “Παν μέτρον άριστον” as my ancestors used to say… So everything in moderation … your meat and vegetables consumption included…

            • @Madryoch – Long-winded for long-winded:

              “…provided they are not harming others.” But you are harming others, horribly…innocent, helpless others.

              “You are a DANGER to the rest of us when you don’t vaccinate your child…” But healthy children with healthy immune systems who are immune for life to things like measles, are a danger to no one, especially not to “safely vaccinated” kids, right? Or do you admit how it is in fact vaccinated immune systems that breed mutated, more dangerous viruses and such? The National VICP isn’t regularly paying out millions in vaccine damage suits for nothing, you know.

              And about diabetes, funny you should bring that up, since my younger brother who’s a long-time Atkins and “paleo” type believer has let it be known that he’s had type 2 diabetes for years now and is finally “coming out” because he’s having serious health problems and needs help, which he’s getting from me…the older, healthy, vegan. Ironic, isn’t it? By a nice surprise, his doctor whom I found for him is also vegan. He’s on a couple of meds and is eating tons of vegetables now, and is improving. So much for that.

              As far as plant sentience? If you believed that you’d want no more animal farming. Period. Animals grazing, food grown for them…huge plant murder going on there. Not to mention all that water waste, pollution of groundwater, etc.. Then there’s the sadistic confinement and slaughter of those obviously highly sentient animals to top it all off in the worst ways. Congrats on your “humaneness” and “logic” there.

              You’ve proved nothing good to me here with your self-proclaimed “scientific” and “superior” imposing of your ideas on me, while proclaiming not to do so, and your implying it is me doing that. So, I went out and found you and forced you to read my little article at gunpoint? If you think my ideas hurt you…that’s 100% crazy.

              As far as your sitting on the fence about the Graz study: As a scientist you should be ashamed of such convoluted nonsense. So you’ve apparently got a personal stake in that study or the animal ag industry, possibly both.

              See, to do a study of meat eaters, vegetarians and vegans…why would anyone start out with 15,000 meat eaters and a few hundred vegetarians and 31 vegans? And then whittle down the meat eaters to a tiny fraction? That alone is very unscientific and speaks volumes about the study. If you’re honest you’ll admit that the triumphant news stories and opinion pieces condemning veg diets after that thing came out are what you should be up in arms about and imposing your condemnation on…not on me for what I wrote here.

              I can give you a long list of actual scientific study links supporting veganism. So just ask. It’s a huge list so I don’t like to post it unless asked.

              But what awful cranks people become when defending animal abuse/exploitation/slaughter. It goes with the territory.

              Think. Gain real compassion/empathy. Evolve. Don’t instead try to kick me around.

    • Thanks, I read his article just now. I have a problem with Care2, and now with Steve Williams, as both are staunch proponents of forced vaccinations. And Williams does seem to give more credence to the Graz U. “study” than it deserves, in statements like, “Over all, vegetarians reported having a lower quality of life and poorer social relationships.” Such self-reporting by a tiny percentage of participants is highly questionable. And he failed to note that supposed vegans were only 0.2% of the study or 31 people out of 15,474, and that egg/dairy eating by the small group of vegetarians is not much different from meat eating, both ethically and health-wise. Even though he goes on to say the study is majorly flawed and incomplete, he’s too soft on it for me. And his other article on how we are all to obey the “new vaccine schedule”…woah! I don’t care for him, but that’s me.

  3. You do realize there were not 15,000 people in this study right? They eliminated the vast majority of meat eaters to match the number of vegetarians. N=1320. Please go to school and learn how to read a research study before you spout your nonsense and preconceived bias on the internet.

    • @David: From the study itself: “Overall, 15474 individuals, aged 15 years and older,
      were questioned in computer-assisted personal interviews…” And they stated further: “Since,
      overall, only 2.2% of all participants consumed a vegetarian diet…” And only 31 of those people claimed to be vegans = 0.2%. No amount of numbers manipulation later on changes those percentages; that only served to sum up to the desired results.
      You need to question how and why the huge majority of meat eaters in that 15,000+ beginning total were whittled down to only 330. Who did they cut out…all the meat eaters suffering ill health? That’s an awful lot of trimming there.
      IMPORTANT: Even if your point means something, 31 vegans vs. 1289 people eating animal products still says virtually NOTHING about vegans. So if 2.4% of the study participants were vegans, is that so much better than 0.2% in the beginning? A reliable scientific study doesn’t need to resort to such obfuscations. They instead start out and finish with equal numbers of subjects to represent each side and report the results clearly, and they also use far more legitimate data than what is gotten from “interviews.”
      We vegans (as opposed to vegetarians) who’ve had only good results, significantly improving our health both mentally and physically, have a legitimate problem believing such a study that concludes only the opposite and using highly questionable methods, especially when so many other…credible…studies concur with our experiences. I have a huge list of links to provide here if you ask for it. Although I don’t need studies…I have my own very positive experience.
      So anyhow, what’s your snarky attitude about?

      • Whether or not the study proves anything one thing remains certain. Vegans have a holier than thou, self righteous, smug attitude very similar to modern day religious terrorists. This is continually proven in all vegan comments on discussions such as this.

        • Oh, really, can you point out where I’ve done any of that unless responding to worse? Can you dispute any facts, or you simply want to smugly, self-righteously make false personal attacks? “Funny” how stating the simple truth about humanity’s deplorable record of self-delusion, animal cruelty and cruelty towards each other is labeled as a “holier than thou, self righteous, smug attitude very similar to modern day religious terrorists” by certain people. I see you’re in Austria. Hey, what say you about the glaringly self-righteous, smug, sadistic, triumphant tone of meat advocates in articles and comments that came out in response to the so-called study? I bet you enjoyed all that immensely and have very selective perception in that regard.
          How awful that people advocating for unselfish compassion and simple human decency are attacked and condemned continually by those who defend exploiting/abusing/killing the helpless. It puts all of humanity to shame, forever, until people turn things around en masse. That’s all we’re fighting for. And it’s simply right, not self-righteous at all, nothing at all to be condemned per se.

        • Craig, Actually, vegans are better citizens of the earth and quite possible HOLIER than thou (meat eaters). They are thinking of the greater good, not what taste good.A very unselfish life indeed. They care about future generations and the health of all people. They care about animals and the 20,000 children that die every day from hunger because their countries sell their grain to the USA to feed cows. Vegans don’t ravish the planet- animal agriculture is the number one contributor to greenhouse gasses more than all cars. Animal agriculture is the primary reason for deforestation (which killed the Mayans-no forest, no rain= drought). Vegans don’t contribute to the horrors and extreme animal abuse that meat eaters do because it is wrong to cause any animal to suffer and be confined for reasons of gluttony, greed, sport or entertainment. They also.benefit by their decision and are much healthier. So, considering all the good they do, I think they really are a little “holier” than someone that is destroying the planet with their diet without a thought, causing extreme animal suffering and the killing of over 53 Billion land animals a year, and causing health care cost to sky rocket because of their self indulgent diets. So if you are offended, that is not the vegans who are causing you to feel that way, that is something inside making you feel guilty about your diet. You should listen to it.

          • @Karen: Yes indeed, to all you said, thank you for apparently reviewing that study in full. One thing though…I’m sort of a “foodie” and do care about what tastes good. I’ve gained much appreciation for tasty/healthy plant foods, more and more as the years go by. Changing habits for the better is awesome. Just wanted to butt in and point that out 😊

    • The thing that makes this pseudoscience is that the study was not scientific. Participants were interviewed, from another survey that was interviewed.The original survey was a representative sample of the Austrian population with a very small amount of vegetarians, I believe is was 0.2%. ZERO POINT TWO PERCENT, not even a quarter of one percent of participants and even not all of them were involved in the study.. Although the 343 vegetarians were matched up to subjects in various meat diet groups, there were no one on a totally plant based diet. Dairy is an animal protein, which vegetarians consume is scientifically linked to many cancers, weak bones, and diabetes, just to name a few. Many of the vegetarian even ate fish. Also not mentioned but very relevant was there was no mention of how long the subjects were on a vegetarian diet. This is a huge factor when doing these studies. Also when looking at the study design it was an cross section interview study which relies on subjects to be honest. This isn’t science, it’s a survey or questionaire. Also, there was no list of funding listed, a huge red flag. Any credible study has funding listed. When funding is not listed, it is very questionable. In addition, none of the authors of the study has any credentials, another big red flag. There is no science or evidence presented. You can make assumptions based on this study, but this one study is contradicted by a hundred others that show that the more animal proteins consume, the more at risk you are for many cancers and diseases. These studies are easily accessible on the NIH website. A more credible study would have been conducted by nutrition professionals. Their funding would be listed and it would be from a reputable source, like the NIH who funds over 80% of health studies. Participants would have more of a background on their diets and how long they have consumed that diet and these figures would have to be calculated in the results. There should have be vegans involved in the study as milk and eggs and fish (an animal meat) contain animal proteins just as meat, and are linked to many cancers, diseases and illnesses. And lastly, a scientific study would involve some control in the group to insure what subjects were consuming.

  4. “It only shows huge animal-ag bias and pseudoscience, conducted, paid for, published, and eagerly grasped onto and touted as real by the media, animal ag interests, and their consumer puppets.”
    Why did you lie? Some sort of vegan taqqiya?
    From the study: “Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report.”

    • I see you don’t know Clintonisms, as in “none to report.” Do tell, what else could be motivation for such an unscientific study concluding that eating only plant foods is akin to an idiot’s death march into malnutrition devastation and mental illness? Example of how such lies are propagated: People with long-term chronic constipation are something like 500 times more likely to develop colorectal cancer later in life. So if someone goes vegan/high-fiber and thereby cures their constipation problem, yet down the line still develops colorectal cancer because of the damage done earlier…guess what’s nonetheless blamed and claimed to have caused the cancer? That’s right: veganism. Which is a dirty lie. As opposed to my surmising that the Graz study shows financial backing by vested interests. If not that, again, do tell what motivated them? BTW, Taqiyya, the Muslim word for deception, means you’re implying vegans are terrorists? Interesting.

  5. Thank you Laura for your tireless pursuit to prove this study as mere quackery and responding to the naysayers in such a factual and collected manner. I salute and appreciate you!

    • Thank you so much, Dermot. Whenever I see there’s a comment on this article I think “oh no-o-o-o.” Such a relief when it’s someone kind like you. This Graz “study,” and the media’s happily spreading it, had the desired effect though…I often see people online saying it’s been proved in a scientific study that vegans have lower quality of life, are sicker, more mentally ill, etc.. When it’s all based in non-science, nonsense and lies. Vegans today, who do it right and stick with it, are some of the healthiest, most mentally & emotionally strong people in the world. But people need to hate and/or pity us for being “self-righteous” and/or “lacking proper nutrition,” because they believe what they want to believe, to excuse cruel habits, alleviate guilt.

  6. If you cannot be civil in commenting here, don’t bother, it will not be approved. Post your anti-vegan venom somewhere else. The link to the study is posted at top of article for anyone to go directly to it and interpret for themselves what it all means. Don’t need any rude, authoritarian, vegan-bashing crusaders “explaining” it to them here. Write your own articles or whatever on your own pages to do that.

  7. Thanks for your time in pointing this out. When I saw the study I really couldn’t believe it.. Like it just didn’t make sense and does not match up with reality and my personal experiences or what I have observed.. And now it makes much more sense. Total propaganda in my opinion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s