Ms. Mary McBride, this is academic fraud
Serious Microwave Pollution in your Synagogue Sanctuary
http://groups.google.com/group/mobilfunk_newsletter/t/d5d4eb79b8edfea8
--------
Dear HESA Committee Members, (sent previously)
I would like to provide some information about the potential significance of this for those of you who may never have heard of Mary McBride. She has worked on many important panels and studies: Interphone Study with Daniel Krewski, Health Canada's Royal Panel to review the adequacy of Safety Code 6; Industry Canada's Antenna Siting Policy, just to name a few. Many of the studies upon which she has worked have been funded to a significant degree, if not entirely, by the telecommunication industry.
Her stance with regard to electromagnetic radiation has consistently been one in support of industry. For example, she has attended meetings at schools where parents are expressing concerns about proposed cell transmitters on or near the school. She has appeared as the lone representative, the expert, who has reassured parents that there is no known evidence of harm or danger cell transmitters. One such meeting in Surrey, BC, is on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvYtXSaVV-c
Respectfully,
Sharon Noble
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble
To: McBride, Mary
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 3:16 PM
Subject: A word to the wise....
Under any other circumstances, I would begin by saying: "What were you thinking, Ms. Mary McBride? What in the world were you thinking?"
But knowing your many years of involvement in the academic community, I must assume that you have a perfectly reasonable explanation. I just can't imagine what it could be. So I'm asking, help me out here.
For years you have been an avid supporter of the wireless communications industry. For years that support was given an enormous amount of weight by virtue of your academic credentials. But it turns out that for years that weight, that respect, has every appearance of being undeserved. Though you have been publically identified as Dr. Mary McBride since 1997, according to the academic status attached to your publications, you are not Dr. McBride at all. Your highest academic degree is listed as a Master of Science.
I have been connected to the academic world for decades, Ms. McBride, and, as we both know, this cannot be trivialized as a mere breach of etiquette. Not only has this apparent misperception been allowed to gain credence, it's been allowed to fester and grow for well over thirteen years. Plain and simple, Ms. McBride, this is academic fraud. So this has to be accounted for.
Without an accounting, I know how this will be perceived, Ms. McBride. It will be said that it matters not at all that in your research papers your academic credentials are properly identified, if in all matters outside the parametres of those papers the perception is allowed to continue that you have an academic background that you do not. No comment will be necessary, then, about your ability as a research epidemiologist. It will be said that you have done that yourself by assuming the mantle of scholarship rather than earning it.
Without a clarification that I am sure you can provide, this perception of academic dishonesty will cast a pall on every bit of research with which you have been involved. Your colleagues will feel they deserved better. Indeed, the entire scientific community will feel it deserved better. Your every claim to scholarship, your every claim to academic status, will carry with it the admonition: "caveat emptor", let the buyer beware.
A case in point, Ms. McBride: despite your lacking a PhD, the Canadian Cancer Society alleges that you are an Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia. That institution denies that connection.
I'm sure you have a perfectly acceptable explanation for this confused state of affairs, Ms. McBride. Would you do me the kindness of offering it now?
Dennis Noble
Tonight at 6:14 on CTV news, Mary McBride was "outed" for not being a doctor while being listed as such on the Canadian Cancer Society's webpage. She said that she wasn't aware of how she was listed that way - meanwhile, as recently as May 17th she was referred to as Dr. McBride on the CTV website in a print story (which I believe was deleted today). Kudos to Sharon Noble for pursuing this! Hopefully this will air later tonight again.
Here's the story at the top of the CTV BC news page:
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/
Here's the video:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/clip309123#clip309123
On May 31, 2010 she was introduced in a radio interview as Dr. Mary McBride - in the "8 minute interview" at the 54 second mark. Have a listen:
http://earthsky.org/health/mary-mcbride-on-whether-cell-phones-cause-cancer
And now the Canadian Cancer Society is now on the hot seat for this as well. Ms. McBride was a co-researcher on the Interphone Study.
I wonder if any of the mainstream media will ever put 2 and 2 together when they see TELUS's $1,000,000 gift to the BC Cancer Agency listed in their 2009 Annual Report and wonder if it influenced Dr. McBride's or the BC Cancer Agency's advice on cell phones and cell towers. How can they be impartial in face of over $1M in funding?
Many of you have seen this 2004? YouTube video of Sullivan Heights School fighting a cell tower and Ms. McBride saying that there was no convincing evidence that cell towers cause harm (or some version of that gobbley gook):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvYtXSaVV-c
Just love Milt Bowling's response to that!
Can you imagine parents thinking "well if a doctor from the BC Cancer Agency says cell phones are OK for kids (and cell towers) the they must be!"
Carl
Informant: Martin Weatherall
--------
Ph.D is just a word
One more question- if that is what the cancer society in Canada does - invents degrees in order to get things advanced better, what else do they do that we don't know? Inventing a Ph.D is quite a task, and to think they got away with it for 14 years and she did not even feel uncomfortable with it until the TV got involved.
Iris Atzmon
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble
To: Honourable Tony Clement ; Honourable Leona Aglukkaq ; Suzanne Vinet ; Susan Fletcher ; Morris Rosenberg ; Carolina Giliberti ; Beth Pieterson ; AtamaA@parl.gc.ca ; Keith Martin-Ottawa ; Keith Martin -Riding ; G. Kennedy ; D. Coderre ; A. Mendes ; T. Mulcair ; P. Brown ; C. Bennett ; Luc Malo ; C. Carrie ; T. Uppal ; N. Dufour ; K. Duncan ; J. Smith ; J. Murray ; P. Davidson ; C. Hughes ; S. Cardin ; Megan Leslie
Cc: Dr. Magda Havas ; Dr. Olle Johansson ; Dr. Dimitri Panagopoulos ; Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy ; Dr. Annie Sasco
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Where is the outrage?
Where is the outrage when a prominent researcher for the BC and Canadian Cancer Society has admitted to allowing herself to be misrepresented as having a PhD for more than 14 years? Why aren't people demanding a review of her work and the decisions to which she has contributed? If she has been dishonest about her credentials isn't it likely she has been dishonest in her work?
Mary McBride has participated in many important panels and studies which affect us all. She was named to the prestigious Royal Society of Canada and participated in the review of Safety Code 6, for Health Canada, approving the extremely high amounts of radiation we can be exposed to by cell phones, transmitters, etc. She participated in development of Industry Canada's Antenna Policy, determining that transmitters could be placed near homes, schools and hospitals, and that the public need not be informed. She was a member of the team working on the Interphone Study which, according to most scientists, was a poorly done, using faulty assumptions and unrealistic parameters. I am sure there have been more, through the Cancer Society of which I am not aware.
This is the same Mary McBride, while working at the BC Cancer Centre with children, who reassured concerned parents that cell transmitters on schools were safe. She said this while being fully aware of many studies done by independent scientists showing radiation from these transmitters pose serious health threats, especially to children.
Why aren't people demanding that these studies and their results be reviewed? If one person with questionable integrity participated, perhaps others did. In fact, many involved in these important decisions have direct ties to the telecommunication industries -- receiving funding both directly and indirectly. If due diligence was neglected in selecting researchers, confirming educational qualifications and ensuring no conflict of interests, aren't the results highly questionable? Why do these very same individuals work together on panels and studies relating to wireless devices, over and over again? Could it be because they keep coming up with the same results, the same results the corporations want?
Where are the investigative journalists who should be looking into this, who would have in years gone by? Are corporate interests at work here as well?
The lack of outcry over this deception seems to be a sad commentary on our current society. We've grown accustomed to people misleading us, to products making us sick, to our governments not protecting us. As a consequence we've stopped being shocked or angry when we learn that our water is no longer fit to drink, our air is filled with carcinogens, and our homes are radiated by transmitters.
This apathy is what the corporations depend on -- and we get what we deserve. Reseachers who lie to us, often in return for research dollars spent on providing results the corporations want. Being told that we need devices like WiFi and cellphones even though the corporations know the inherent dangers, and even though there is safe technology that would do the same job but it costs the corporations more in infrastructure. And, don't forget, our governmental agencies which depend on corporate financing, such as licensing fees from telecommunication companies which amount to billions of dollars a year. Health Canada will assure everyone that their guidelines are adequate to protect us, even though they are among the worst in the world, and despite thousands of studies showing otherwise rather than risk this income.
Without outrage what kind of world are we leaving for our children and our grandchildren?
Outraged!
Sharon Noble
818 Bexhill Place
Victoria, BC V9C 3V5
(250) 478-7892
Interphone led to the first lawsuit in Israel: phone and cancer
A father of five filed a lawsuit a week ago after he heard of the interphone results. He has agressive lymphoma, went through chemotherapy. During his calls he felt his ear was heating, afterwards the area near his ear was blown 2.5 years ago, and he was diagnosed with cancer. He has experts opinions, one of them is of oncologist prog Shmuel Ariad, who wrote that he had several causes together, and a causal relationship can be drawn between his lymphoma and the use of the phone. Manager of oncology in the hospital Soroka in Beer Sheva prof Reuven Hod wrote that the cancer arrived on the after excess exposure from the mobile phone, to which he was exposed during two years before appearance of the disease. The suit claims that companies did not warn the public properly and that he tried several times to understand from them what the levels of the phone are and he did not receive an answer. Orange in reply said they would respond when they learn the suit, in court. Today he was supposed to talk on the radio but at the last moment they brough an oncologist who ruled out the relationship - Dr. Noa Ben Baruch. She represents the chemical factories in another lawsuit filed by fishermen with cancer who say the chemical factories spilled their chemicals into the water and this was the reason for their cancer, so she spoke on the radio instead of the cancer patient. The cancer patient ordered a check of radiation and understood there is a problem with the radiation level from his phone, he is a lawyer and he filed the suit though lawyer Gideon Pener. It is not said in the article how many lawsuits were filed following the interphone.
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/29/ART2/118/536.html%C2%A0
Informant and Translation: Iris Atzmon
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=electromagnetic+radiation
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electromagnetic+radiation
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=microwave+radiation
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=microwave+radiation
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=exposure
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=exposure
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=children
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=children
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=brain+barrier
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=brain+barrier
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=cancer
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=cancer
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=lymphoma
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=lymphoma
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=HESA
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Interphone
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Interphone
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Health+Canada
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Health+Canada
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Canadian+Cancer+Society
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Canadian+Cancer+Society
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Sasco
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Christopher+Ketcham
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Mary+McBride
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Mary+McBride
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Krewski
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Krewski
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Milt+Bowling
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Milt+Bowling
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Sharon+Noble
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Sharon+Noble
http://groups.google.com/group/mobilfunk_newsletter/t/d5d4eb79b8edfea8
--------
Dear HESA Committee Members, (sent previously)
I would like to provide some information about the potential significance of this for those of you who may never have heard of Mary McBride. She has worked on many important panels and studies: Interphone Study with Daniel Krewski, Health Canada's Royal Panel to review the adequacy of Safety Code 6; Industry Canada's Antenna Siting Policy, just to name a few. Many of the studies upon which she has worked have been funded to a significant degree, if not entirely, by the telecommunication industry.
Her stance with regard to electromagnetic radiation has consistently been one in support of industry. For example, she has attended meetings at schools where parents are expressing concerns about proposed cell transmitters on or near the school. She has appeared as the lone representative, the expert, who has reassured parents that there is no known evidence of harm or danger cell transmitters. One such meeting in Surrey, BC, is on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvYtXSaVV-c
Respectfully,
Sharon Noble
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble
To: McBride, Mary
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 3:16 PM
Subject: A word to the wise....
Under any other circumstances, I would begin by saying: "What were you thinking, Ms. Mary McBride? What in the world were you thinking?"
But knowing your many years of involvement in the academic community, I must assume that you have a perfectly reasonable explanation. I just can't imagine what it could be. So I'm asking, help me out here.
For years you have been an avid supporter of the wireless communications industry. For years that support was given an enormous amount of weight by virtue of your academic credentials. But it turns out that for years that weight, that respect, has every appearance of being undeserved. Though you have been publically identified as Dr. Mary McBride since 1997, according to the academic status attached to your publications, you are not Dr. McBride at all. Your highest academic degree is listed as a Master of Science.
I have been connected to the academic world for decades, Ms. McBride, and, as we both know, this cannot be trivialized as a mere breach of etiquette. Not only has this apparent misperception been allowed to gain credence, it's been allowed to fester and grow for well over thirteen years. Plain and simple, Ms. McBride, this is academic fraud. So this has to be accounted for.
Without an accounting, I know how this will be perceived, Ms. McBride. It will be said that it matters not at all that in your research papers your academic credentials are properly identified, if in all matters outside the parametres of those papers the perception is allowed to continue that you have an academic background that you do not. No comment will be necessary, then, about your ability as a research epidemiologist. It will be said that you have done that yourself by assuming the mantle of scholarship rather than earning it.
Without a clarification that I am sure you can provide, this perception of academic dishonesty will cast a pall on every bit of research with which you have been involved. Your colleagues will feel they deserved better. Indeed, the entire scientific community will feel it deserved better. Your every claim to scholarship, your every claim to academic status, will carry with it the admonition: "caveat emptor", let the buyer beware.
A case in point, Ms. McBride: despite your lacking a PhD, the Canadian Cancer Society alleges that you are an Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia. That institution denies that connection.
I'm sure you have a perfectly acceptable explanation for this confused state of affairs, Ms. McBride. Would you do me the kindness of offering it now?
Dennis Noble
Tonight at 6:14 on CTV news, Mary McBride was "outed" for not being a doctor while being listed as such on the Canadian Cancer Society's webpage. She said that she wasn't aware of how she was listed that way - meanwhile, as recently as May 17th she was referred to as Dr. McBride on the CTV website in a print story (which I believe was deleted today). Kudos to Sharon Noble for pursuing this! Hopefully this will air later tonight again.
Here's the story at the top of the CTV BC news page:
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/
Here's the video:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/clip309123#clip309123
On May 31, 2010 she was introduced in a radio interview as Dr. Mary McBride - in the "8 minute interview" at the 54 second mark. Have a listen:
http://earthsky.org/health/mary-mcbride-on-whether-cell-phones-cause-cancer
And now the Canadian Cancer Society is now on the hot seat for this as well. Ms. McBride was a co-researcher on the Interphone Study.
I wonder if any of the mainstream media will ever put 2 and 2 together when they see TELUS's $1,000,000 gift to the BC Cancer Agency listed in their 2009 Annual Report and wonder if it influenced Dr. McBride's or the BC Cancer Agency's advice on cell phones and cell towers. How can they be impartial in face of over $1M in funding?
Many of you have seen this 2004? YouTube video of Sullivan Heights School fighting a cell tower and Ms. McBride saying that there was no convincing evidence that cell towers cause harm (or some version of that gobbley gook):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvYtXSaVV-c
Just love Milt Bowling's response to that!
Can you imagine parents thinking "well if a doctor from the BC Cancer Agency says cell phones are OK for kids (and cell towers) the they must be!"
Carl
Informant: Martin Weatherall
--------
Ph.D is just a word
One more question- if that is what the cancer society in Canada does - invents degrees in order to get things advanced better, what else do they do that we don't know? Inventing a Ph.D is quite a task, and to think they got away with it for 14 years and she did not even feel uncomfortable with it until the TV got involved.
Iris Atzmon
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble
To: Honourable Tony Clement ; Honourable Leona Aglukkaq ; Suzanne Vinet ; Susan Fletcher ; Morris Rosenberg ; Carolina Giliberti ; Beth Pieterson ; AtamaA@parl.gc.ca ; Keith Martin-Ottawa ; Keith Martin -Riding ; G. Kennedy ; D. Coderre ; A. Mendes ; T. Mulcair ; P. Brown ; C. Bennett ; Luc Malo ; C. Carrie ; T. Uppal ; N. Dufour ; K. Duncan ; J. Smith ; J. Murray ; P. Davidson ; C. Hughes ; S. Cardin ; Megan Leslie
Cc: Dr. Magda Havas ; Dr. Olle Johansson ; Dr. Dimitri Panagopoulos ; Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy ; Dr. Annie Sasco
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Where is the outrage?
Where is the outrage when a prominent researcher for the BC and Canadian Cancer Society has admitted to allowing herself to be misrepresented as having a PhD for more than 14 years? Why aren't people demanding a review of her work and the decisions to which she has contributed? If she has been dishonest about her credentials isn't it likely she has been dishonest in her work?
Mary McBride has participated in many important panels and studies which affect us all. She was named to the prestigious Royal Society of Canada and participated in the review of Safety Code 6, for Health Canada, approving the extremely high amounts of radiation we can be exposed to by cell phones, transmitters, etc. She participated in development of Industry Canada's Antenna Policy, determining that transmitters could be placed near homes, schools and hospitals, and that the public need not be informed. She was a member of the team working on the Interphone Study which, according to most scientists, was a poorly done, using faulty assumptions and unrealistic parameters. I am sure there have been more, through the Cancer Society of which I am not aware.
This is the same Mary McBride, while working at the BC Cancer Centre with children, who reassured concerned parents that cell transmitters on schools were safe. She said this while being fully aware of many studies done by independent scientists showing radiation from these transmitters pose serious health threats, especially to children.
Why aren't people demanding that these studies and their results be reviewed? If one person with questionable integrity participated, perhaps others did. In fact, many involved in these important decisions have direct ties to the telecommunication industries -- receiving funding both directly and indirectly. If due diligence was neglected in selecting researchers, confirming educational qualifications and ensuring no conflict of interests, aren't the results highly questionable? Why do these very same individuals work together on panels and studies relating to wireless devices, over and over again? Could it be because they keep coming up with the same results, the same results the corporations want?
Where are the investigative journalists who should be looking into this, who would have in years gone by? Are corporate interests at work here as well?
The lack of outcry over this deception seems to be a sad commentary on our current society. We've grown accustomed to people misleading us, to products making us sick, to our governments not protecting us. As a consequence we've stopped being shocked or angry when we learn that our water is no longer fit to drink, our air is filled with carcinogens, and our homes are radiated by transmitters.
This apathy is what the corporations depend on -- and we get what we deserve. Reseachers who lie to us, often in return for research dollars spent on providing results the corporations want. Being told that we need devices like WiFi and cellphones even though the corporations know the inherent dangers, and even though there is safe technology that would do the same job but it costs the corporations more in infrastructure. And, don't forget, our governmental agencies which depend on corporate financing, such as licensing fees from telecommunication companies which amount to billions of dollars a year. Health Canada will assure everyone that their guidelines are adequate to protect us, even though they are among the worst in the world, and despite thousands of studies showing otherwise rather than risk this income.
Without outrage what kind of world are we leaving for our children and our grandchildren?
Outraged!
Sharon Noble
818 Bexhill Place
Victoria, BC V9C 3V5
(250) 478-7892
Interphone led to the first lawsuit in Israel: phone and cancer
A father of five filed a lawsuit a week ago after he heard of the interphone results. He has agressive lymphoma, went through chemotherapy. During his calls he felt his ear was heating, afterwards the area near his ear was blown 2.5 years ago, and he was diagnosed with cancer. He has experts opinions, one of them is of oncologist prog Shmuel Ariad, who wrote that he had several causes together, and a causal relationship can be drawn between his lymphoma and the use of the phone. Manager of oncology in the hospital Soroka in Beer Sheva prof Reuven Hod wrote that the cancer arrived on the after excess exposure from the mobile phone, to which he was exposed during two years before appearance of the disease. The suit claims that companies did not warn the public properly and that he tried several times to understand from them what the levels of the phone are and he did not receive an answer. Orange in reply said they would respond when they learn the suit, in court. Today he was supposed to talk on the radio but at the last moment they brough an oncologist who ruled out the relationship - Dr. Noa Ben Baruch. She represents the chemical factories in another lawsuit filed by fishermen with cancer who say the chemical factories spilled their chemicals into the water and this was the reason for their cancer, so she spoke on the radio instead of the cancer patient. The cancer patient ordered a check of radiation and understood there is a problem with the radiation level from his phone, he is a lawyer and he filed the suit though lawyer Gideon Pener. It is not said in the article how many lawsuits were filed following the interphone.
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/29/ART2/118/536.html%C2%A0
Informant and Translation: Iris Atzmon
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=electromagnetic+radiation
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electromagnetic+radiation
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=microwave+radiation
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=microwave+radiation
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=exposure
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=exposure
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=children
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=children
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=brain+barrier
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=brain+barrier
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=cancer
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=cancer
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=lymphoma
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=lymphoma
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=HESA
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Interphone
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Interphone
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Health+Canada
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Health+Canada
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Canadian+Cancer+Society
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Canadian+Cancer+Society
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Sasco
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Christopher+Ketcham
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Mary+McBride
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Mary+McBride
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Krewski
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Krewski
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Milt+Bowling
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Milt+Bowling
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Sharon+Noble
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Sharon+Noble
Starmail - 30. Mai, 18:38
