U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-20-2015, 02:45 PM
 
5,720 posts, read 3,264,102 times
Reputation: 6721

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi View Post
The article itself states where the info comes from. Right there, in black & white, two tiny paragraphs down. Here's what it says: "The documents come from the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which is used by the FDA to monitor the safety of vaccines"

Oh, and you know what else concerns parents? Cancer.

Why do you assume your ability to understand research is so much better than mine, and that I have been "brainwashed" and am allowing my children to be "lab monkeys?"

I have not been brainwashed. I am intelligent. I pored through THOUSANDS of claims on Gardisil when trying to decide if my children would get it. I read as much as I could and came to the conclusion that many of the reports were made due to coincidental incidents. I don't think it's a case of lying when people make these claims. I think, aside from a very few cases that I do not have the knowledge to assess, there were desperately sad people trying to find A reason, ANY reason so they had someone or something to blame. This is scapegoating. I don't doubt the sincerity of those making the claims. But you must realize that not every claim is legitimate. I know that in VAERS data from a an almost 10 year period, of the MILLIONS of doses of Gardasil given, a few dozen deaths reported could be verified. Of those, there were no clear commonalities or trends or trails to follow to show the deaths were attributed to Gardasil. I took what I learned and talked to my doctor, who listened to my concerns and reassured me that I was correct. So, my son got his Gardasil. My daughter will get an HPV vaccination when it is recommended. I am not stupid. I am not ignoring anything. I also had to see a gyno-oncologist to have a hunk of cervix removed--one day coming in when they had a cancer support group meeting in the waiting room. I then had to wait to hear if I would be joining that group. I WILL do what I can to shield my children from that--it would be irresponsible and cruel to do otherwise.

Oh, and FYI, I got regular pap smears. Everything was fine. Until it wasn't. Why on earth would I wait until my child is INFECTED with HPV to start the cancer watch, if I can PREVENT HPV altogether? That makes no sense.

There is a troubling trend I see in this whole argument. There is a divide over those who continue to offer scientific evidence, showing fact & data to offer support. Then those who offer a "feeling" and a "belief," using the "feelings" and "beliefs" of others to support it. (Not everyone falls into one or the other camp, but there are a lot who do.) Faith is not science. Never has been, never will be. You can't offer, "Well, I believe..." as a factual argument. It doesn't hold water.
I am pro choice, so the science holds weight with me. If my daughters were young today would I vaccinate them today? No, because the majority of 12 year olds are not going to get cervical cancer at that young of an age. If they want it at 18+, they can make that decision themselves. I feel the same about Hep. B and newborn vaccinations. In all likelyhood, children won't get that either until they are adults. Let them choose then.

FYI, my last pap test was in 1984, so if younger, I probably would never get that HPV vax for myself or my daughters. I stopped going for GYN exams when I did not need to take the Pill. I have never gotten any mammograms either. Again, choice. If an adult woman decides to forego either, that should be HER choice for whatever reason, and nobody else's to dictate medical treatment.

 
Old 07-20-2015, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,441,785 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi View Post
The article itself states where the info comes from. Right there, in black & white, two tiny paragraphs down. Here's what it says: "The documents come from the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which is used by the FDA to monitor the safety of vaccines"

Oh, and you know what else concerns parents? Cancer.

Why do you assume your ability to understand research is so much better than mine, and that I have been "brainwashed" and am allowing my children to be "lab monkeys?"

I have not been brainwashed. I am intelligent. I pored through THOUSANDS of claims on Gardisil when trying to decide if my children would get it. I read as much as I could and came to the conclusion that many of the reports were made due to coincidental incidents. I don't think it's a case of lying when people make these claims. I think, aside from a very few cases that I do not have the knowledge to assess, there were desperately sad people trying to find A reason, ANY reason so they had someone or something to blame. This is scapegoating. I don't doubt the sincerity of those making the claims. But you must realize that not every claim is legitimate. I know that in VAERS data from a an almost 10 year period, of the MILLIONS of doses of Gardasil given, a few dozen deaths reported could be verified. Of those, there were no clear commonalities or trends or trails to follow to show the deaths were attributed to Gardasil. I took what I learned and talked to my doctor, who listened to my concerns and reassured me that I was correct. So, my son got his Gardasil. My daughter will get an HPV vaccination when it is recommended. I am not stupid. I am not ignoring anything. I also had to see a gyno-oncologist to have a hunk of cervix removed--one day coming in when they had a cancer support group meeting in the waiting room. I then had to wait to hear if I would be joining that group. I WILL do what I can to shield my children from that--it would be irresponsible and cruel to do otherwise.

Oh, and FYI, I got regular pap smears. Everything was fine. Until it wasn't. Why on earth would I wait until my child is INFECTED with HPV to start the cancer watch, if I can PREVENT HPV altogether? That makes no sense.

There is a troubling trend I see in this whole argument. There is a divide over those who continue to offer scientific evidence, showing fact & data to offer support. Then those who offer a "feeling" and a "belief," using the "feelings" and "beliefs" of others to support it. (Not everyone falls into one or the other camp, but there are a lot who do.) Faith is not science. Never has been, never will be. You can't offer, "Well, I believe..." as a factual argument. It doesn't hold water.
No one is saying you shouldn't vaccinate your kids or yourself. However, the choice is yours as is the choice not to vaccinate.

You can't "PREVENT HPV altogether" since there are 100's of strands and dozens linked to cancer. All you can do is have FAITH that the vaccine (containing 2, 4, or 9 strains) will prevent HPV that could cause cancer. You seem to BELIEVE vaccines are good for you and your family. Others have FAITH in their own immune system and BELIEVE vaccines are not good for them and their family.

It doesn't come down to science at all, it actually comes down to FAITH and BELIEF.

BTW I was referring to the FACT that the vaccine schedule has never been tested for safety before recommended when I said the public is being used as lab monkeys (or rats if you prefer).

The right to choose what medical interventions a person uses is a personal decision and it should remain so.
 
Old 07-20-2015, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,855 posts, read 26,507,833 times
Reputation: 27059
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
The link I provided was from the Washington Times not VAERS. I'll post it again:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/us-court-pays-6-million-gardasil-victims/
"Judicial Watch announced it has received documents from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealing that its National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has awarded $5,877,710 dollars to 49 victims in claims made against the highly controversial HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines. To date 200 claims have been filed with VICP, with barely half adjudicated."
I would think you can ask the Washington Times for their source since I did not write the article
.

I never said the link was from VAERS.

The link in your post does not go to the article, but it, and a bunch of other anti-vax articles, come up, too. Judicial Watch has a clear anti-vaccine position.

The article describes four of the complaints (taken from VAERS):
  • "5 months from the completion of the GARDASIL HPV vaccination, I had full blown cervical cancer.". This patient had an abnormal Pap 15 months after completing the course of Gardasil. Her previous Paps had been normal. Despite that, she was already infected with HPV before she got the Gardasil. This case demonstrates that Pap smears are not infallible. If she had had an HPV test done, it would have shown that she already had high risk HPV; however, that was not the customary thing to do in 2006.
  • ]Guillain Barre after second dose. Complaint does not say how long after the second dose the symptoms started. If it was within 6 weeks, it may be compensable, since it appears the Court is generous with awards for GBS. However, large studies are not showing an increase in GBS after Gardasil.
  • Seizure 11 days after vaccine. Family history of seizures. Diagnosis of new onset epilepsy. Although fainting is not unusual after getting Gardasil and there may be jerking movements associated with fainting, there is no association of Gardasil and epilepsy. There is this interesting report though suggesting that infection with the HPV virus itself may predispose to epilepsy:

    CURE Epilepsy: News: Story

    " 'The findings by Dr. Crino and his colleagues are particularly interesting because they suggest that a common form of childhood epilepsy is associated with maternal exposure to HPV. This research provides important insight into the cause of this form of childhood epilepsy and suggests a causal link to a virus most notably associated with human cervical cancer.' This novel finding by Dr. Crino and his colleagues is extremely important because it acknowledges a potential cause of FCDIIB and raises the important question as to whether this type of epilepsy could be prevented or modified by early screening and HPV vaccination."
  • The last case describes a death, but the case it links to is a patient who had a simple fainting spell and was fine.

Judicial Watch admits "Of the 47 reported deaths, 41 occurred within a month of receiving the vaccine and of those 17 were within two weeks or receiving the vaccine. In most of the deaths the cause is still unknown." If the cause is unknown, how do you blame the vaccine?

Judicial Watch also reports: "However, not only did previously healthy women experience genital warts after the vaccination, but 21 girls developed warts on other areas, most commonly the face, hands and feet, and in one case, 'all over her body.' " The vaccine does not protect against all strains that cause warts. It would be extremely uncommon for someone to have warts "all over" the body, and if it were truly warts, it would more likely be due to a strain not included in the vaccine. The vaccine only covers two low risk strains associated with benign warts.

The Judicial Watch article does not give information on any awards for injuries caused by Gardasil. It is just another troll through VAERS trying to make it look like Gardasil is killing people. It's not.


Quote:
You provided a study with monkeys and vaccines... In the about section of the study it admits: "As the U.S. vaccine schedule has expanded, parental perceptions that vaccines pose safety concerns have grown (Gust et al. 2009; Kempe et al. 2011), especially since there have been no preclinical studies examining the safety of new pediatric vaccine schedules in their entirety before universal recommendation."
More shifting of the goalposts. First it was MMR causes autism, but it was shown that is not true. Then it was thimerosal, also not true. Now it's aluminum, but you get more of that in food, water, and air than you do in vaccines. But since , by golly, it has to be the vaccines, now it's the entire schedule that's at fault.

The quotes you reference are the reason the study was done - a study of the entire vaccine schedule, including that evil ole thimerosal.

Quote:
In other words... the public are the lab monkeys. This causes concern in parents. It's not that hard to understand why there is a controversy with vaccines and the schedule.
No, the "lab monkeys" were the volunteers who did the initial dosing, safety, and efficacy studies.

Quote:
The fact that the pro-vaccine crowd can't understand real concerns shows the "vaccines are safe and effective" brainwashing type campaign is working.
Doctors and nurses who give vaccines understand the concerns. It is frustrating,however, to try to explain to parents that what they think they know about vaccines is false and that they should be concerned more about the diseases that vaccines prevent, not the vaccines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman View Post
We all know that'll never happen. Adults have a voice. With adults it would become very obvious the damage being done, and we couldn't pretend that it was hereditary, or from some other cause.
How sickening to think that vaccines are a one size fits all...from a 6lb infant on the day of their birth to a 300 lb adult.
Viruses are one size fits all. Viruses replicate in infants and adults, actually finding infants a better target.

Some vaccines do have different doses for children and adults. So yours is an argument with no scientific foundation.

Vaccine Schedule: Other Schedule issues | The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

"Infants versus adults

A popular misperception is that all vaccines are given at the same dose to infants and adults. However, there are specific adult and pediatric versions of hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis vaccines. In the cases of hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccines, adults receive greater quantities of the components that afford protection in order to produce a protective response. However, in the case of the latter vaccines, the quantities of components of the diphtheria and pertussis vaccines used in adults are less than those found in pediatric doses because adults are more likely to experience side effects from these vaccines.

Vaccines and medicines are not created equal

Often, people are concerned about the dosing of vaccines because they compare them with medicines, which are given in different doses based on body weight. This is like comparing apples and oranges.

Specifically, medicines work when a certain level is present in the bloodstream; therefore, the weight of a person is important. It takes more of a medicine to see the same effect in a larger person than it does in a smaller person. This is similar to the effects of alcohol on a large man and a small woman.

Vaccines work differently. For a vaccine to be effective, the cells of the immune system are important. Immune cells, called T cells and B cells, must be able to recognize the component of the vaccine, so that if a person comes into contact with that virus or bacteria again, these educated cells can become active and protect the person from an infection. Since these cells are throughout the body, they are usually educated near where the vaccine is given and then the cells, not the vaccines, travel throughout the body. Because of the way that vaccines work, they typically require very low quantities of active ingredients.

Vaccine doses

Vaccine doses are not chosen arbitrarily. During the four phases of vaccine development, different doses are tested to determine the lowest effective dose for the target age group. For example, the rotavirus vaccine was tested at quantities as low as one-tenth the current dose and up to 10 times the current dose.

Vaccine developers must practice good medicine and good economics. Giving larger doses of active ingredients than required would increase the side effects from and the costs of vaccines."
 
Old 07-20-2015, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Marquette, Mich
1,048 posts, read 398,892 times
Reputation: 2357
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
No one is saying you shouldn't vaccinate your kids or yourself. However, the choice is yours as is the choice not to vaccinate.

You can't "PREVENT HPV altogether" since there are 100's of strands and dozens linked to cancer. All you can do is have FAITH that the vaccine (containing 2, 4, or 9 strains) will prevent HPV that could cause cancer. You seem to BELIEVE vaccines are good for you and your family. Others have FAITH in their own immune system and BELIEVE vaccines are not good for them and their family.

It doesn't come down to science at all, it actually comes down to FAITH and BELIEF.

BTW I was referring to the FACT that the vaccine schedule has never been tested for safety before recommended when I said the public is being used as lab monkeys (or rats if you prefer).

The right to choose what medical interventions a person uses is a personal decision and it should remain so.
I will give my kids a better chance of preventing HPV by vaccinating them then hoping against hope they are not exposed prior to them "making their own choice." Teenagers are notorious in the belief that they are indestructible and that bad things won't happen "just this once." Not to mention that one cannot always plan on whether they are exposed to HPV. It is my job to protect them as best I can, and you can damn well bet I will go to the ends of the earth to do so. They are precious and remarkable, and they deserve the best shot at a healthy happy life I can give them. Personally, I don't know how I could ever answer the question, "if you could have protected me, why didn't you?" If I could go back to get the HPV vaccination before my exposure, you can bet I would. It would have saved a lot of time, worry, pain, and money.

And it should come down to science. Evaluating data is not a faith. You may have faith that you've made the right decision after evaluating the evidence. But that in not the same. But to rely on gut feeling over fact? Illogical. Dangerous. Irresponsible. Choice? Fine, but with no delusion then. Full set of information to see what risks exist on each side. No vaccinations means huge risk--to the unvaccinated by choice and to those unprotected by need or timing. You choose not to, you serve the consequences.

Immune systems, likewise, do not run on faith. They are relatively predictable in many ways--exposure to a virus will likely cause infection, unless the body has developed an immunity via prior exposure or a vaccination. You cannot "trust" your immune system into warding off measles or chickenpox or pertussis. That's an argument bordering on the hilarious. If it weren't so sad and frightening.
 
Old 07-20-2015, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Marquette, Mich
1,048 posts, read 398,892 times
Reputation: 2357
I'm truly curious about something.

I've read a couple of post bemoaning insurance mandates on top of vaccination mandates. There seems to be a commonality here with sum "pro-choice" folks also suggesting insurance mandates go too far.

So, people want to be able to opt out of vaccinations.

People also do not want to be forced to carry insurance.

Where does that personal liberty stop, and personal responsibility begin.

I can also put this in term of economics. You're costing me money. Rising health care costs are the fault of those that do not take responsibility. That is free-market economics. I'm sick of those who choose not to participate in the prevention & preparation (insurance) end expecting the rest of us to foot the bill. I'm not talking about those who legitimately cannot afford to pay. I'm talking about true, selfish, freeloading citizens who are freeloading off of the rest of us.
 
Old 07-20-2015, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Washington state
4,798 posts, read 2,383,248 times
Reputation: 14069
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
This treatment came from the CDS and Military... Are you saying that the treatment was wrong even though the military is the one who came up with it.
This goes to show that you don't care about any treatment or prevention. All you care about is that someone "reputable" says that vaccines are "safe and effective"... then there are some who say they aren't safe nor effective... You think they are... Some think they aren't. The pro-choice argument is that we should have a choice what medical procedures we agree to. Do you disagree? Do you think that you should be required to have chemo for a cancer diagnosis?
The treatment is not "wrong" but again, you're still treating the symptoms. Look at it this way: when someone gets Ebola, all they can do is treat the symptoms. Sometimes the people live, a lot of times they die. Giving supporting care is making the person comfortable, keeping them hydrated (if possible) and trying to alleviate stress. But an Ebola vaccine would save a whole lot more people than just doing the supportive care. Same with the bubonic plague. You can give supportive care and some people will live, and a lot more people will die. Give all those people antibiotics and the majority will live.

Likewise, if you give supportive care to cholera victims, some of them will live and a lot of them will still die. A cholera vaccine would keep a lot of the ones who might die alive. It's that simple. And if you think it isn't, look at the huge numbers of people who died from cholera in the past.

In fact, a cholera vaccine that keeps people from getting cholera in the first place would not require you to give anybody any treatment, supportive or otherwise.

And as for those "reputable" people, well, I have read enough about them, know what they have done, what they have experienced and studied, where they have been, what epidemics they have faced, and what they've done to help the people of those epidemics. I recognize a lot of them by name. And yes, I consider them very reputable.

There's a big difference between choosing to not vaccinate and choosing to not get chemo. You not getting chemo for your cancer doesn't put another person at risk. You not getting yourself or your child vaccinated does.

The hypothetical situation would be if someone didn't vaccinate their child, that child got measles, that child passed measles on to someone else with an immune compromised system, and that person died. It's not a hypothetical situation anymore because it has actually happened now. The woman in Washington didn't die because you didn't get chemo for your cancer. She died because some anti-vaxxer chose to not get his or her child vaccinated, with the result that their choice to not vaccinate didn't end with that parent, like a decision to not get chemo would have. That choice had repercussions, all the way to costing someone else their life.

So yes, I disagree with you in that regard.

And as far as I'm concerned, I care very much about prevention. That prevention is called vaccines.

Last edited by rodentraiser; 07-20-2015 at 07:55 PM..
 
Old 07-20-2015, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Washington state
4,798 posts, read 2,383,248 times
Reputation: 14069
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi View Post
I'm truly curious about something.

I've read a couple of post bemoaning insurance mandates on top of vaccination mandates. There seems to be a commonality here with sum "pro-choice" folks also suggesting insurance mandates go too far.

So, people want to be able to opt out of vaccinations.

People also do not want to be forced to carry insurance.

Where does that personal liberty stop, and personal responsibility begin.

I can also put this in term of economics. You're costing me money. Rising health care costs are the fault of those that do not take responsibility. That is free-market economics. I'm sick of those who choose not to participate in the prevention & preparation (insurance) end expecting the rest of us to foot the bill. I'm not talking about those who legitimately cannot afford to pay. I'm talking about true, selfish, freeloading citizens who are freeloading off of the rest of us.
You may have missed another post of mine:

From the CDC:

"Between 1989 and 1991, in the U.S. there was a measles outbreak that spread over 49 states, sickened more than 55,000 people, and claimed over 100 lives—mostly children.

In the twenty years since the VFC’s (Vaccine for Children) 1994 implementation, the CDC estimates that for the 78.6 million children born since 1994, the country’s immunization program has prevented 322 million illnesses (roughly four per child) and 21 million hospitalizations, and saved 732,000 lives. Vaccinations, the agency reports, have also saved the U.S. $295 billion in direct costs and $1.38 trillion in total societal costs. The vaccine program stopped 70 million cases of measles alone."

There's your cost.
 
Old 07-20-2015, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Washington state
4,798 posts, read 2,383,248 times
Reputation: 14069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
I am pro choice, so the science holds weight with me. If my daughters were young today would I vaccinate them today? No, because the majority of 12 year olds are not going to get cervical cancer at that young of an age. If they want it at 18+, they can make that decision themselves. I feel the same about Hep. B and newborn vaccinations. In all likelyhood, children won't get that either until they are adults. Let them choose then.

FYI, my last pap test was in 1984, so if younger, I probably would never get that HPV vax for myself or my daughters. I stopped going for GYN exams when I did not need to take the Pill. I have never gotten any mammograms either. Again, choice. If an adult woman decides to forego either, that should be HER choice for whatever reason, and nobody else's to dictate medical treatment.
If you waited till your daughters were 18, chances are they already had sex and already carry the HPV virus.

By the way, your "choice" to not get the HPV vaccine is fine, until you get cervical cancer and my insurance rates go up because your cancer has to be treated. Same with any breast cancer you may get. Thanks loads.
 
Old 07-20-2015, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Washington state
4,798 posts, read 2,383,248 times
Reputation: 14069
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post

MONTERREY, MEXICO – If parents here are late getting their child inoculated, a public-health nurse will come to their home, pull down the youngster's pants and give the vaccination right there in the living room.
Which is exactly what we should be doing.

So is Somalia. In the middle of a 30 year civil war, their vaccination rate was higher than that of the US. Maybe because they've seen thousands of children dying of measles and other diseases, and they know first hand that those diseases can kill. While here in America we just bury our heads in the sand and talk about how our immune systems and faith will save us. No wonder they think we're idiots.
 
Old 07-20-2015, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,441,785 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi View Post
I will give my kids a better chance of preventing HPV by vaccinating them then hoping against hope they are not exposed prior to them "making their own choice." Teenagers are notorious in the belief that they are indestructible and that bad things won't happen "just this once." Not to mention that one cannot always plan on whether they are exposed to HPV. It is my job to protect them as best I can, and you can damn well bet I will go to the ends of the earth to do so. They are precious and remarkable, and they deserve the best shot at a healthy happy life I can give them. Personally, I don't know how I could ever answer the question, "if you could have protected me, why didn't you?" If I could go back to get the HPV vaccination before my exposure, you can bet I would. It would have saved a lot of time, worry, pain, and money.

And it should come down to science. Evaluating data is not a faith. You may have faith that you've made the right decision after evaluating the evidence. But that in not the same. But to rely on gut feeling over fact? Illogical. Dangerous. Irresponsible. Choice? Fine, but with no delusion then. Full set of information to see what risks exist on each side. No vaccinations means huge risk--to the unvaccinated by choice and to those unprotected by need or timing. You choose not to, you serve the consequences.

Immune systems, likewise, do not run on faith. They are relatively predictable in many ways--exposure to a virus will likely cause infection, unless the body has developed an immunity via prior exposure or a vaccination. You cannot "trust" your immune system into warding off measles or chickenpox or pertussis. That's an argument bordering on the hilarious. If it weren't so sad and frightening.
You think it is folly to "trust" your immune system but you "trust" vaccines. How is that any different? You say we shouldn't use faith in the equation... yet you have "faith" that vaccines will protect you. Many vaccinated children and adults get the diseases they are vaccinated against. Sometimes faith and trust doesn't work and sometimes medicine and science fails.

The FACT is that vaccines contain know poisons and are given to perfectly healthy people... what more could be a compelling reason for concern from some people? Unvaccinated children have to be exposed to a disease before they are dangerous to those who cannot vaccinate. Therefore, they are harmless to the average person. We are talking about a small percentage of people who don't vaccinate coming in contact with a small percentage of people who can't. The odds are...

Take the woman in Washington who died of pneumonia allegedly from an unvaccinated kid. Faceless, nameless person... get "preventable" disease... have complications... is immune compromised... exposed weeks earlier... news report comes out months later just days after CA bill passes... Smells Fishy to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top