Vasodilan (Isoxsuprine) helps to widen blood vessels so blood flows better.

Package	Price	Per Item	Savings	Order
60 pills x 20 mg	$56.91	Only $0.95 per pill	You Save $0.00
90 pills x 20 mg	$71.55	Only $0.80 per pill	You Save $13.75

Contraceptive or Abortifacient

As the article definitely and correctly states, the morning after pill is not an abortifacient, and can hardly "end" a pregnancy three days after intercourse, as implantation would not prepare occurred in that time. -- Someone else 02:58, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'll ask my doctor her impression about transubstantiation. -- Someone else 03:05, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

She says she's against it. Like don't put misinformation here. The views of both "sides" are adequately represented in this article. -- Someone else 03:12, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, and that expression was written after I characterized your prior change as misinformation. The article appropriately addresses a medical keynote by considering it medically first and addressing moral concerns later. It doesn't stress a discursive paragraph on religious opinions before it addresses scientifice concerns: it addresses pious concerns at the appropriate place. -- Someone else 03:24, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Decipher the mechanisms in the article. It should be stated that it prevents pregnancy, not conception. Removed "Because a contraceptive is literatim anything which prevents conception, when taken after the moment of conception the morning after pill acts as an abortifacient." which is illogical: the victory part of the sentence does not imply the latter part. You're not representing the viewpoint correctly, let unsurpassed attributing it (as it is later in the article). -- Someone else 03:36, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC) -- Someone else 03:36, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Columbia Encylopedia - duration of time between fertilization of the ovum (conception) and birth
• The 'Lectric Law Library - to be the nation of a female who has within her ovary or womb, a fecundated germ
• WordReference - the period from launch to childbirth
• American Heritage - Carrying developing offspring within the body (veiled, yet applies) .

The second is both quaint and bizarre, implying that eggs are fertilized in an ovary, and that an ovary and womb are synonymous. -- Someone else 03:58, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

removing "A contraceptive is line for line anything which prevents conception. When the morning after pill is taken prior to conception it upon my word acts as a contraceptive, but when taken after the moment of conception it acts as an abortifacient. " is an amelioration. My point is that the argument you seem so intent on pursuing is is adequately presented later in the article, in a more off with place, and in a more readable manner. -- Someone else 04:09, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Later in the article means that I entertain the idea medical discussion should be first, and ethical discussion after. The article says it is known as exigency contraception, which is simply true, not a viewpoint. -- Someone else 04:30, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK, so you apparently think. I myself prefer to think that people might in actuality like an article about the morning after pill, rather than about the ethics of the morning after pill. -- Someone else 05:35, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I go together with Someone else the article is fine as it is, it already presents both POV's.Also a shot on wrist for BuddhaInside. Minor edits are for typo's, fixing broken links, and changes in formatting.Adding and deleting size is not minor, and in an edit war situation you should never mark edits as minor. Theresa knott 07:35, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Here is my proposition.

• Opportunity gesture the paragraph on most used american pill more below in the article, for a more planet wide approach.
• Add pro-life in the line with "religious conservative" to make it more non-specialized and recognise the pro-life people opinion on the matter (to avoid restricting the statement to undeviating people). I agree that the article is probably clear enough on why some people hug that opinion
• add the link this buddha indicated above in external links for a toe toward a pro-life opinion and ethical background for discussion
• add another link toward pro-choosing opinion if you feel the one above needs to be balanced

What do you think ?

Anthère

---

Hmmm... we be versed it is available in the US, France, UK, Albania, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Morocco, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Australia, and Sweden. What places bear made it inaccessible? -- Someone else 09:25, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Reading this article, I'm unclear as to whether the pill (in the pinch mode, taken soon after sex) is a contraceptive or not. Does it prevent conception (fertilization of the egg) or not? If my one-time understanding of the function is correct, it acts as a form of birth control by preventing implantation of the zygote, but not as a contraceptive like condoms. — Daniel Quinlan 06:53, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

At best as an FYI, if all the factors are right and conception (fertilization) does occur as a result of intercourse, it occurs less than seven minutes after ejaculation.

See http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5049,00.html for a more exact explanation.

Pianoman123 08:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

---

3 changes, Anthere. The first is describing the pill as acting to prohibit implantation:

• the more normal way would be to say it prevents pregnancy, but BI refuses to permit that.

• • Me neither. It is not sure when pregnancy begins.

• on the mechanisms it's not and/or, it's just or: if you prevent the release or fend the fertilization you can't also prevent implantion of a fertilized ovum, as there won't be one.

• • but ! on the nose ! It is "you" who put "and" :-) I replaced it by "and/or" not to remove your "and". Putting "or" would just convenient to me perfectly :-)

• Abortifacient has a clear medical meaning, and it's "an agent that results in an implanted zygote or embryo (or fetus) being expelled". The morning after pill doesn't do that: it's not classified as an abortifacient. But those who oppose the morning after pill because it prevents implantation may use the word abortifacient to make a linguistic point, that's their own very peculiar definition: the medical clarity is the one that should be used, as it clarifies that RU-486 IS and abortifacient and the morning after pill ISN'T. -- Someone else 07:49, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• • Yes, but an american medical core of view. It is just *one* point of view
  • my favorite encyclopedia (well, second after wikipedia of positively), say an "agent abortif" is something that provoke/lead to abortion . Abortion is defined as being the demise of an embryo or foetus. And an embryo is an organism from the fertilization stage to 3 months. By french gauge (medical ones too), a foetus is one from the fertilization moment, not the implantation (I looked for a associate for you, http://www.aly-abbara.com/livre_gyn_obs/termes/emryon_foetus.html).

Anthère

That's a agreeably reference and the french/americans do not define embryo or fetus differently. But if you find a french (or any other countries) pharmacoepia that lists the morning after pill as an 'abortifacient' i wish be VERY surprised: it just isn't one. I don't think it's a national difference. The only reaction I would differ with your 2nd favorite encyclopedia is the claim that the bereavement of ANY embryo is abortion: I think the term more stringently defined would apostrophize only the loss of an implanted embryo an abortion; Pregnancy starts when implantation occurs: the not confusion on this matter is that it can only be spoken of retrospectively: in prosaic speech one never has the opportunity to say "I'm pregnant" until well after implanation has already occurred. -- Someone else 08:32, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Your significance of view is very interesting, but I disagree with some points.

First, fibrous that is "private" stuff, I must respectfully disagree with the in common philippic one never has the opportunity to say "I'm pregnant" until well after implanation has already occurred.

"Reservoir flow after" is very much undefined. When I decided to get pregnant one year in december, we had procreant relationship on the 1rst of january, and morning sickness (morning was an understatement) started on the 4th. On the 5th of january, I went to a medical skill (in USA) for an unrelated medical pb that required medical treatment. When I indicated I was fertile, and wanted to be sure the medication would not be a pb to the foetus, medical staff answered me I was not, I could not, and notwithstanding if I was, I would not be said so before I was at least 1 week late. Followed a good bracket gather of discussion after which they agreed to make a test (I mean, I was a pain, favourable ?). The test was positive. Inside themselves, I know they admitted the inside info, for they asked me to come back two days later for an echo, become of a knob that made them fear of a nidation was occurring at the wrong place (a link days later, the lump was gone, very likely, it was the yellow corpse, which is to a great extent enlarged at 5 days of pregnancy). They then told me the medication was fine to transport for a pregnant woman, but they refused to officially admit me as pregnant. I did not understand at that circumstance :-) It is not until 3 weeks later that I was registered pregnant, even in spite of I had already lost 6 pounds from "morning" sickness.

Something you might find attractive as well, is that the french length of pregnancy is 10 days longer than the american one. Peculiar eh ?

Now, to come back to the abortifacient aspect, I would not even try to check because I recognize it is classified in an in-between class, that we call "contraceptif d'urgence". It is of course advertised as a contraceptive. I establish for you a link to the legal discussion at our assembly which occured in 2000.

http://www.assemblee-nat.fr/cri/leg11/html/20010007.asp

I force translate to you a very interesting part of it, that will show you perhaps that "medical explication" has its limits, and that we should not limit ourselves to it in our description of the issue.

Monsieur le président, mesdames les ministres, madame la rapporteuse, mes chers collègues, c'est encore à la sauvette que nous discutons d'un texte qui posture d'importants problèmes de société à l'occasion d'une niche parlementaire, un jour de moindre affluence dans l'hémicycle. Car la proposition de loi sur la contraception d'urgence n'est pas un texte anodin, à caractère approach, destiné à remédier à un simple dysfonctionnement juridique.

En proposant que la pilule du lendemain puisse être distribuée par des infirmières dans les collèges et lycées sans autorisation parentale et sans remedy médicale, ce texte pose très sérieusement plusieurs problèmes politiques et sociaux très importants. Quelle beginning du rôle des parents et de leurs activités véhicule-t-il ? Comment s'insère-t-il dans les objectifs de santé publique et quelle aspect donne-t-il des responsabilités médicales, éducatives et politiques ? Premièrement : qu'entend-on exactement par contraception d'urgence ? Il semble qu'aujourd'hui il n'existe que deux produits susceptibles de répondre à cette appellation : le Tétragynon, à slavish d'oestrogènes, et le Norlevo, à base de progestérone. Seul le second serait firmé par le texte dont nous discutons, parce qu'il ne présenterait pas de dangers pour la santé. Ces pilules sont-elles réellement une méthode de contraception ? La perception du Norlevo indique : « La contraception d'urgence est une méthode de rattrapage qui vise à éviter l'ovulation ou l'implantation d'un oeuf fécondé en cas de accord sexuel non protégé. »

En d'autres termes, soit le Norlevo a un effet nul, si le rapport a été non fécondant ou si l'ovule fécondé est en escort de s'implanter, soit il a un effet contraceptif en empêchant la fécondation, soit il empêche l'implantation.

Mais l'implantation de quoi ? De l'ovule fécondé, c'est-àdire de l'embryon. La vie de l'embryon, de l'être humain, upon dès la fécondation. Il possède dès ce moment tout son patrimoine génétique, donc, quel que soit le nom qu'on lui donne, la prise de levonorgestrel peut avoir teem effet d'arrêter le développement de la vie humaine. Il n'y a en effet aucun doute scientifique sur le fait que la vie humaine upon dès la conception.

Tout le reste n'est que bavardage.

Depuis que le débat sur ce sujet a commencé, on nous affirme que la grossesse enter upon à la nidation de l'embryon et que c'est la raison pour laquelle la prise de Norlevo ne peut être assimilée à une intrusion volontaire de grossesse. Mais il n'existe aucune définition juridique ou scientifique permettant de vérifier cette théorie.

Selon la définition de l' Encyclopaedia Universalis , l'état de grossesse enter upon à l'instant de la fécondation et se termine neuf mois plus tard environ. Quoi qu'il en soit, qu'on l'appelle grossesse ou pas grossesse, quand il y a eu fécondation, la vie humaine a commencé et le Norlevo interrompt bien la vie dans ce cas-là. La réalité est que le Norlevo peut être une contraception d'urgence dans certains cas, mais qu'il peut également être un abortif d'urgence. Ce n'est pas une hypothèse minime, quand on sait que, dans les vingt-quatre heures, après un relationship sexuel non protégé au moment fertile du cycle de la femme, 30 % des rapports ont déjà été fécondants. L'face consacrée de « contraception d'urgence » est donc limitative et trompeuse. Que l'on soit flow ou contre la distribution du Norlevo dans les collèges et lycées, cette réalité mérite d'être reconnue. Les enjeux psychologiques et moraux, puis les enjeux de santé publique sont tels que nous avons le devoir de dire la vérité sur cette cast doubt upon à nos concitoyens. Pour cette même raison, il est indispensable de respecter l'objection de principles du corps médical - médecins, infirmières et pharmaciens - qui ne peut être contraint à distribuer le Norlevo en raison de ses effets.

Deuxièmement, le débat sur la pilule du lendemain fait naître plusieurs questions qui relèair du domaine de la santé publique. L'absorption d'une pilule de Norlevo équivaut à celle de vingt-cinq comprimés d'anticonceptionnel traditionnel. Ce n'est pas rien.

L'objectif affiché est de limiter les grossesses chez les jeunes filles. Or on peut se demander si le Norlevo atmosphere un véritable impact en ce domaine. C'est au moins un sujet de débat, que Mme la ministre a du reste évoqué dans son intervention. La possibilité de prendre ce médicament ne va-t-elle pas encourager une certaine irresponsabilité chez les filles et surtout chez les garçons ?

Mr. President, Mesdames the ministers, Madam the recorder, my at great cost colleagues, it is still hastily that we discuss a text which poses eloquent problems of company at the time of a parliamentary niche, one day of less multitude in the hemicycle. Because the unofficial bill on emergency contraception is not a text pain-killer, in technical matter, intended to medication a simple legal dysfunction. By proposing that the pill of the following day can be distributed by nurses in the colleges and colleges without parental authorization and medical accepted, this text very seriously poses several political and social problems remarkably significant.

Which design of the role of the parents and their activities does it convey? How does it profile part of the objectives of public health and which image it gives medical, academic and political responsibilities?

Firstly: what does one hear exactly by danger contraception? It seems that today there are only two products likely to response this name: Tétragynon, based on oestrogens, and Norlevo, containing progesterone. At best the second would be concerned with the text which we discuss, because it would not gratuity dangers to health. Are these pills really a method of contraception? The note of Norlevo indicates: "exigency contraception is a method of correction which aims at avoiding the ovulation or the establishment of an egg fertilized in the circumstance of sexual relation not protected" In other words, is Norlevo has a null effect, if the dispatch/ratio were not fertilizing or if the fertilized ovule is being established, either it has a contraceptive in truth by preventing fecundation, or it prevents the establishment. But establishment of what? Fertilized ovule, it is -àdire embryo. The duration of the embryo, human being, starts as of fecundation. It has as of this moment all its genetic property, therefore, whatever the name that one gives him, the catch of levonorgestrel can cause to be over the development of the human life.

There is indeed no scientific doubt on the fact that the vulnerable life starts as of the design. All the remainder is only chattering. Since the debate on this undergo started, it is affirmed us that the pregnancy starts with the nidation of the embryo and that this is why the take in of Norlevo cannot be comparable with a termination of pregnancy. But there is not any legal or well-controlled definition making it possible to check this theory. According to the definition of Encyclopaedia Universalis, the hold of pregnancy starts at the moment of fecundation and finishes nine months later about. At all events, that it is called pregnancy or not pregnancy, when there was fecundation, android life started and Norlevo stops well the life in this case. Aristotelianism entelechy is that Norlevo can be an emergency contraception in certain cases, but which it can also be abortive difficulty. It is not a tiny assumption, when it is known that, in the twenty-four hours, after a progenitive relation not protected at the fertile time from the cycle from the woman, 30 % of the reports/ratios were already fertilizing. The true expression of "emergency contraception" is thus restrictive and misleading. That one is for or counters the division of Norlevo in the colleges and colleges, this reality deserves to be recognized. Psychological and lesson stakes, then the stakes of public health are such as we have the duty to say the truly on this question to our fellow-citizens . For this same reason, it is essential to point the conscientious objection of the medical profession - doctors, nurses and pharmacists - who cannot be constrained to dispense Norlevo because of his effects.

Secondly, the debate on the pill of the following day gives birth to not too questions which come under the field of the public health. The absorption of a pill of Norlevo is alike to that of twenty-five compressed of contraceptive traditional. It is nothing. The posted goal is to limit the pregnancies in the girls. However one can wonder whether Norlevo will keep a true impact in this field. It is at least a subject of debate, which Mrs. the clergywoman has of the remainder evoked in her intervention. Won't the possibility of taking this drug encourage a unchanging irresponsibility in the girls and especially among boys?

Mme Boutin was one of our 16th presidential candidate at our ultimately elections. She is very focused on family, society, and bioethics. The dignity of the human bodily is at the center of her discourse.

She is a journalist, not a doctor. And not doctors only decide of the definition of words.

Anthère 11:03, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Here is a Widespread perspective on how pro-abortionists having been working to change the definition of words like "commencement" and "abortion" in order to make pre-implant termination of the product of conception somehow not be abortion. -BuddhaInside

Medical researchers needs to oblige "alive" status be as late as possible, in order to use stem cells. Anthère

Whoah, whoah, whoah. This nitpicking surrounding whether an unimplanted embryo counts as a pregnancy is completely beside the point. The fundamental method of operation for the morning-after pill is prevention of ovulation, with a small theoretical risk of interfering with implantation that hasn't precise been shown to occur scientifically (see here for example), a risk which is also theoretically posed by the average birth control pill. If you've already conceived when you take the morning-after pill, you'll stay pregnant. Conservatives perceive about that "small theoretical risk" and jump all over it trying to away it out as the primary method of operation, but that doesn't make it so. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 21:45, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Some additional Canadian matter to add. The morning after pill is currently available from a pharmacist in British Columbia, Quebec and Saskatchewan. On May 19, 2004 it was announced by the condition minister that there was a proposal to make the pill available in all provinices from a pharamacist. I'm not unfaltering if this is law yet because it gets into Canadian politics. Parliament was disolved in the forefront this could have been passed, because there was a new election coming. Manner the suggestion seems to have come from Health Canada, perhaps (credible) with proding from politicians (or the other way around). My guess would be its reasonable still in the works to be available in the other provinces.

There is also complaints around the fact that the woman has to talk to the pharmacist at all about it (as well as complainst from the faithful right...i'll enclose two links at the end). Apparently a pharmacist could charge $20 for the "warning" plus the cost of the pills. In practice i don't think this would happen after the pill was in no time available in cities because of competition although they might be able to burden what we call "the fill fee" which is the fee they get for putting together prescriptions (the article doesn't delineate--this could be the concern but fill fees are often in the $10-15 range not $20 and if you look round you can find them much cheaper.

From what i can tell there are in any case Estrogen versions of the morning after pill in Canada (although they are only offering plan B at the pharmacies). I pick up my beginning control from a local city clinic because i'm on low income. One time i made a criticism about how i wasn't going to bother using it if just the condom broke (i use a with little up method) because of how sick the pill made you, because i got migraines, smoked and had a second cousin who had a paramount stroke at 40 (these are all very good reasons not to take high estrogen.....although it would serene be a personal decision, which i was basing on the other type i used working 60% of the unceasingly a once over a year, not with one accident). I have taken very low dose pills as soon as for a few months to regulate but i would never take high estrogen (in fact they don't use those pills as much as they hardened to because women are getting pregnant on them...miss it by half an hour one day and you may not be safe as houses...its good for a low dose set your clock thing though). She agreed that i was a bad peril factor for the estrogen pills as a morning after option and then told me that Plan B wouldn't change me sick but that just as important in my case it had no estrogen at all.

One difficulty that effectiveness arise is that for those of limited income most prescription drugs are covered (i on no account thought it all that fair i paid for my birth control but you could get the pill on the coverage i prepare). When it becomes non-prescription it is almost always delisted these days. You can petition and i did for an epipen and i won, but i went around bureaucratic cirlces for 6 months and i'm generally good at that nature of thing. This might mean lower access for women who are poor in the hinterlands. For those of us that live in cities that have birth control (or sexuality) centres it doesn't off with a large difference---at least on a weekday, as they sell it affordably. But even with the clinic in my burgh many women are not aware of it, or think it below them to go when they are conditional (in fact you don't need to prove anything). I mean, who has 6 months to appeal the morning after pill or is going to fantasize to do so in advance?

Also in this city it means that a teenager has access to the morning after pill without their parents conscent. The clinic works on a finical confidentiality basis. If you seek it out they figure you are going to make your own choices apropos sex (they offer counselling when you first go, although most revolves thither how to find the right type of birth control for you as well as safe sex and any STD tests you ascendancy want to have as well as how to have some of them (such as HIV) done annonomously---i did go as a teen because of the appraisal factor but i don't remember if they talked much about if i wanted to have sex as i'd already done so (with contraception) but wanted to use the clinic. They are severe about this. I know one women (15 years ago) who went to her doctor to get the pill. He refused and told her parents. She got it off the clinic and the clinic refused to staid look up if she was a client or to say anything to anyone.

I do know my mom needed it about 20 years ago. And the problems she encountered (adequately almost did) might be more common in countries where you need a doctor to demand. Her gynecologist gave it to her when she got ahold of him but generally it was very hard to get at the time. Plane 10 years ago in Ottawa half of the hospitals wouldn't give it out and it was difficult to get on the weekends, although the feminist centres (and the university clinic that offered it) had a bibliography of places that it could be prescribed at as well as where not to waste your experience (problems of time were arising, waiting in an emergency room for a long prematurely just to find out the hospital doesn't offer the service can cause problems if repeated).

Search engining most got reduce pharmacies however these two pages had information http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_emer04.htm and http://onset.thot.net/cwhn.html

The religious tolerance page listed a study with respect to teenagers use of morning after pill...are we able to cite that on here (i'm still learning exactly what can and can't be) that showed teens in didn't use it for parturition control. The DAWN link has a lot of the Canadian news put on it together. DAWN stands for Inoperative Women's Network and is a feminist group.

I'm going to try and edit in bits that try out to Canada. I'll check back or let me know what you think of the edit or comments here.--Marcie 23:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey guys. I over the statement "The morning-after pill cannot be recommended as the main means of birth control because of its solid side effects and relatively low reliability. " is misleading. It has a 90% effectiveness bestow-or-take, and most women do not experience and strong side effects. See http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/morningafterpill.htm I flinch from to be the d*ck, but I would like to mark this as non-neutral until this is sorted out like. Sorry. (P.s. i'm not arguing that it should be the main means - just arguing take the reasons why) -Johnflux 08:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Johnflux 21:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can any of you who believe that EC is an abortifacient period to one scientific peer reviewed article that actually shows EC given after fertilization of the egg can abort it (I use the entitle abortion loosely to include the destruction of a fertilized egg). As far as I can tell, this idea is just conjecture. Scientifically, it has been shown that EC administration produces no statistical reductions in the take to task of pregnancy when given after ovulation. Fertilization cannot occur prior to ovulation, ergo, if EC was producing abortions after fertilization one would expect a statistical reduction in the rates of pregnancy when EC is premised after ovulation. Based on this information, isn't it proper to say there is no scientific support for the sentiment that EC can be an abortifacient. If changes in certain hormone levels or changes in the length of the girlfriend's luteal phase were preventing implantation of the embryo to the uterus, this would tease to lead to statistically significant reduction in pregnancy rates when ECs are given after ovulation. I imagine it is fair and just to give the facts that have scienitific acceptance assorted weight than statements that are mere hypotheses. As far as I can tell, the idea that EC is an abortifacient has no principles to back it up.

Catholics?

The beginning of the article has "its use as a contraceptive is held to be immoral by some groups including the Eclectic Church". This isn't a terribly useful statement since the Catholic Church considers all forms of contraception to be pornographic (except for natural family planning). I'm sure there's no shortage of groups that preclude the pill, so is there one we can name that doesn't oppose all contraception? DopefishJustin (・∀・) 19:01, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

It could be outdo phrased, pointing out that Catholics oppose Plan B as something which causes abortions (it prevents implantation after origination). Catholic Crypt

214.13.4.151

I realize that the article as it stands
Reader John and his patron Michelle found themselves in a situation where they needed to get "Plan B" ancestry control, also known as "the morning after pill. " They went to their local CVS in Hawthorne, CA. and met an uncooperative apothecary who refused them access to the pills because Michelle only had foreign ID to examine she is of legal age. government allowed adults to buy the emergency contraceptive without a prescription. WASHINGTON Reuters - Sales of the Develop B "morning-after pill" nearly doubled in the past year, exceeding expectations after the U. government allowed adults to buy the danger contraceptive without a prescription. This article has practically covered all points on Buying Morning After Pill. Do you feel the same thing upon reading this article?

Comments

Previous Entries

post date	category	title/description
03.23.2009	Articles	1000 Cc Breast Augmentation
03.23.2009	Articles	1000 Augmentin Xr
03.23.2009	Articles	1000 Antiaging Hgh Hghcom Prime
03.23.2009	Articles	1000 Antiaging Hgh Hghcom
03.23.2009	Articles	1000 Antiaging Hgh Hgh Hghcom Prime

Post Comments

Name Email Your Comments