|
Parental Intelligence - Issue 64
|
Bob Collier
|
Oct 20, 2003 10:26 PDT
|
-------------------PARENTAL INTELLIGENCE------------------
20 October 2003
Issue 64
Bob Collier, Editor mailto:quauss-@hotmail.com
This newsletter is never sent unsolicited. You are
receiving it because you requested a subscription, or it
has been forwarded to you by a friend.
If you're not a subscriber and you'd like to subscribe,
please either visit
http://www.topica.com/lists/pintel
or send a blank email to:
pintel-s-@topica.com
If you want to unsubscribe for any reason, please see the
unsubscribe instructions at the end of this newsletter.
Welcome to Parental Intelligence!
"The world's No.1 email newsletter for thinking parents"
Slightly late this week due to some problems with my
computer. My apologies for that.
In this issue of Parental Intelligence, I have a Website Of
The Week for you in Educating Children for Parenting. That’s
followed by a look at ‘ADHD’ and ‘neuroimaging studies’ in
The Candlelight Project and, finally, a great article called
‘Paradox – The Natural Law of Childrearing’.
Coming soon – health issues! I’ve been learning some very
interesting stuff about nutrition and health lately as a
‘spin-off’, so to speak, of my investigations into the
medical aspects of biopsychiatry, and I’d like to share with
you something of what I’ve discovered. Watch out for that in
future issues.
In the meantime, thanks for reading. Have a great week until
next time!
Bob
------------------------------------------------------------
"The snow goose need not bathe to make itself white. Neither
need you do anything but be yourself." - Lao Tzu
------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
Would you like to help my newsletter grow? Simply recommend
Parental Intelligence to all your friends who have children.
They'll thank you for it!
Why not hit that 'forward' button and recommend it to a
friend right now? If what they read is useful to them and
they want THEIR VERY OWN PERSONAL COPY of each and every
motivational, inspirational, lip smackin', thirst quenchin',
info-packed issue of the world's No.1 email newsletter for
thinking parents - all they have to do is send a blank email
to: pintel-s-@topica.com
It's as easy as that, and I'd be delighted to have them on
board!
My goal is 2,000 subscribers by 31st December 2003. This
week's Parental Intelligence is going out to 163 smart
people.
Thank you everyone!
============================================================
************************************************************
A FREE GIFT FOR PARENTAL INTELLIGENCE READERS
For a limited time Parental Intelligence would like to give
you a free introductory copy of byronchild, a new Australian
magazine created especially for progressive families which,
like Parental Intelligence, supports the propagation of
intelligent information for parents. Simply email
ka-@byronpublications.com with your name and address and a
free magazine will be sent to you. See more about byronchild
at http://byronchild.com
************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSITE OF THE WEEK
Educating Children for Parenting
http://www.ecparenting.org/
The mission of Educating Children for Parenting is to
educate young people about the awesome responsibilities of
parenting and the values of caring and nurturing. Youth
learn about a child's needs through instruction in child
development and observation of interactions between babies
and parents/caregivers. ECP reaches young people during
their formative years to develop skills and attitudes that
will help them become caring people today and nurturing
adults tomorrow.
ECP is based in Philadelphia, USA, a national non-profit
organization that provides a school-based parenting
education curriculum and trains teachers to integrate the
curriculum across all academic subjects. Their goal is to
reduce the incidence of violence among youth, the incidence
of child abuse, and the incidence of premature pregnancy by
exposing young people to all aspects of a parent/caregiver's
role.
Since its inception in 1978, ECP's acclaimed, research-based
thematic curriculum for grades K-8 has reached more than
85,000 children in selected sites across the country. During
the 1998-99 academic year, more than 8,000 students in 261
classrooms in 66 schools are participating in ECP.
The program brings a parent and infant into the classroom
monthly to teach students about child development and about
a parent's role in nurturing a child's growth and
development. It is based on the premise that parenting is a
learned skill, one that is passed down through modeling. By
observing the complex parent-child relationship and by
participating in ECP classroom activities, students learn
what a child needs in order to reach his or her maximum
potential, and the responsibilities of being educationally,
emotionally, and financially prepared for parenthood.
Find out more at:
Educating Children for Parenting
http://www.ecparenting.org/
------------------------------------------------------------
THE CANDLELIGHT PROJECT
A short while ago, I was involved in a discussion at an
online forum about claims that were being made by a certain
doctor who shall remain nameless in the matter of the
‘diagnosis’ of so-called ‘ADHD’ through the use of brain
scans - claims that were, in my opinion, wholly
unsubstantiated.
Subsequently, I received an email from a Professor Jonathan
Leo, of the Western University of Health Sciences, together
with a copy of a paper he had co-authored which reviews the
most recent research related to brain scans and the
diagnosis of ‘ADHD’ (and coincidentally makes a reference
to the doctor in question).
“Broken Brains or Flawed Studies? A Critical Review of ADHD
Neuroimaging Research”, by Jonathan Leo, Western University
of Health Sciences, and David Cohen, Florida International
University, was published last month in The Journal of
Mind and Behavior, Winter 2003, Volume 24, Number 1.
This is its opening statement:
“A review of over thirty neuroimaging studies on children
diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADD, ADHD) by Giedd, Blumenthal, Molloy, and Castellanos
(2001) is organized around tables listing the main findings
of studies using different types of neuroimaging. Like most
researchers in this field, Giedd et al. conclude that the
evidence supports the involvement of right frontal-striatal
circuitry with cerebellar modulation in ADHD. However,
Giedd et al. do not report on a confounding variable of
crucial interest in this field of research - whether
subjects had been previously treated with stimulants or
other psychotropic drugs. In the present paper, we have
redone five of the tables from the Giedd et al. review,
adding information on the subjects' prior medication
exposure, as reported in the individual studies included in
the review. We found that most subjects diagnosed with ADD
or ADHD had prior medication use, often for several months
or years. This substantial confound invalidates any
suggestion of ADHD-specific neuropathology. Moreover, the
few recent studies using unmedicated ADHD subjects have
inexplicably avoided making straightforward comparisons of
these subjects with controls.
Note the words "inexplicably avoided".
The complete paper is fascinating to read, a tale of years
of work and millions of dollars spent on producing
ultimately inconclusive results.
You can read the paper in its entirety here:
http://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/NLPs/criticalreviewofadhd.pdf
The following is an overview of “Broken Brains or Flawed
Studies?” from Insight Magazine:
In ADHD Studies, Pictures May Lie
by Kelly Patricia O’Meara
It has been two decades since researchers first began to
explore the use of brain imaging for the purpose of
diagnosing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
the alleged mental disorder affecting an estimated 5 million
children. And two decades later, despite widely accepted
beliefs, there still are no confirming data to support the
use of any brain-imaging modalities in the diagnosis of
ADHD.
A recent review by Jonathan Leo, professor of anatomy at the
Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, Calif., and
professor David Cohen of the School of Social Work at
Florida International University in Miami, dispels the myth
of brain imaging as a way to diagnose ADHD. And it finds
that the majority of studies dating back to 1978 failed,
unaccountably, to consider a major variable - the use of
psychotropic drugs by participants in the studies.
Leo and Cohen's review, entitled "Broken Brains or Flawed
Studies? A Critical Review of ADHD Neuroimaging Research,"
was published last month in the Journal of Mind and Behavior
and looked at 33 of the most recent studies using
computerized topography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
single photon emission computerized topography or positron
emission topography on ADHD-diagnosed subjects. The
researchers were stunned: According to Leo, "Dr. Cohen and I
pulled the studies that had been done on brain imaging and
ADHD and what jumped out at us was that every single study
used medicated kids, subjects who had been on stimulants or
some other drugs that we don't know because that information
wasn't made part of the study."
Leo explains, "The general public sees a picture of a brain,
and one brain looks a little brighter than the 'normal'
brain, but how do you know if you're not looking at
something like 'this is your brain' and 'this is your brain
on drugs'? We found that most subjects with ADD [attention-
deficit disorder] or ADHD had prior medication use, often
for several months or years. So the major conclusion of our
review of these studies is to ask ourselves what are these
researchers doing? You have to wonder if they're really
doing research or trying to come up with a marketing
slogan."
Cohen tells Insight that "there were a number of problems
with these studies, but the fact that the kids were either
on drugs or stopped taking them within days of the study was
not an outstanding issue when we first got into the studies.
In other words, this wasn't something that we were looking
for." He notes, "Only in about one or two of the studies is
mention even made about medications and that's as far as it
went - a mention. But this is a major variable and it's
important because drugs influence the brain. That's why we
give drugs in the first place. It's not an abstract issue,
and we do cite a number of studies on animals and kids that
show that stimulant drugs cause very persistent changes in
the brain."
Cohen explains, "You want to be able to rule out these
changes, so you would want to use kids that aren't on drugs
or just recently taken off of them when you're scanning
them. At the very least what you want to do is report the
medication status. What we found was that only 19 of the 33
studies reported the medication status, some of the 19
reported in an unclear manner and a single study made
something out of the fact that most subjects were on
medications."
According to the researchers, 93 percent of the subjects in
the ADHD diagnosed group were either on drugs, just off
drugs or had been medicated for years. This is a major
confound, but it wasn't a major issue among the researchers
reviewing the ADHD studies. Perhaps the most troubling issue
came when professors Leo and Cohen reviewed the widely
touted 2001 study conducted by some of the most renowned
scientists of the National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH), entitled Developmental Trajectories of Brain Volume
Abnormalities in Children and Adolescents with Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.
Although 14 scientists contributed to the study, it is
generally referred to as the "Castellanos study" after the
lead scientist, child psychiatrist F. Xavier Castellanos.
Ten years in the making and unknown millions spent,
Castellanos and his team conducted 544 MRI scans of 291
subjects - 152 ADHD-diagnosed patients and 139 control
subjects (normal). The Castellanos results were that "on
initial scan, patients with ADHD had significantly smaller
brain volumes in all regions, even after adjustment for
significant covariates."
The celebrated doctor further concluded that "developmental
trajectories for all structures, except caudate, remain
roughly parallel for patients and controls during childhood
and adolescence, suggesting that genetic and/or early
environmental influences on brain development in ADHD are
fixed, not progressive and unrelated to stimulant
treatment." In other words, kids diagnosed with ADHD had
smaller brains than those kids in the "normal" control
group, and brain size isn't due to drug use.
Leo and Cohen are not only disturbed by the conclusion, but
surprised that the Castellanos study received such strong
public attention given that even the NIMH doctor was not
using matched groups. According to Cohen, "Castellanos
essentially is the first-ever study using un-medicated kids.
So we say finally here comes a study from a very experienced
researcher - who has done four or five of these brain-
imaging studies - and what do we get? The control group is
completely inappropriate for these ADHD-diagnosed kids.
Castellanos picked a control group of kids that are more
than two years older than the unmedicated ADHD kids and he
finds that the unmedicated ADHD kids have smaller brains?
That's obvious because the control group is two years older
and significantly heavier and taller."
Cohen says, "What is surprising is that the Castellanos
review is saying that a major difference with ADHD and
normal kids is brain size. But brain size is typically
correlated with head size, and I really doubt that with all
these kids on Ritalin it all boils down to head size. That's
a stretch. But another way of looking at it is that for 30
years researchers have had trouble getting appropriate
subjects for these studies. So with the NIMH review it
finally has a group of non-medicated ADHD kids but now the
problem is getting a control group - undiagnosed kids?"
Castellanos, now with the Child Studies Center of New York
University, tells Insight that he accounted for the age
difference in subgroups and "the control group is age-
matched for the ADHD group as a whole and unmedicated
children with ADHD were significantly younger. That's
because by the time kids get older they've been medicated.
It is very difficult to find kids that are unmedicated. This
is the nature of the condition. It is very difficult to find
very hyperactive children who have not been medicated who
are older. We included all of the children in one analyses
and in another analyses we limited ourselves to age-matched
subgroups."
Leo argues that NIMH "still can do a legitimate study and
take their unmedicated ADHD kids and compare them to a
normal control group - same age, size, etc. But they haven't
done it and the question is why? In a landmark 10-year study
the NIMH didn't use a normal control group - what's the hang
up?"
Cohen agrees. "The study that needs to be done is so simple:
Just compare ADHD-diagnosed kids who haven't been medicated
with a similar age group of 'normal' kids who haven't been
diagnosed. It's the only study that needs to be done, and
there isn't a single study that compares these two groups of
kids. In essence what you've got here is a large body of
studies that cannot support the notion that there is some
brain pathology specific to ADHD because of the confound of
prior or current medication used during the studies. And
until they do the appropriate study, this won't change."
Finally, says Leo, "Given all the problems with the ADHD
imaging research, parents who are contemplating medicating
their children should not be told that this research
suggests that there is a biological basis for ADHD."
Because the Leo-Cohen review is newly published, no
critiques have been posted to date about the validity of the
review. NIMH has not responded to Insight's questions about
the Castellanos review nor the cost of the 10-year study.
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=449586
This, by the way, is the concluding statement of Jonathan
Leo’s and David Cohen’s paper “Broken Brains or Flawed
Studies?”:
"... after twenty-five years, and thirty-five studies, there
is not a single straightforward experiment comparing typical
unmedicated children with an ADHD diagnosis to typical
controls. We are perplexed."
It seems, then, that the proponents of biopsychiatry who
claim 'ADHD' to be a 'neurological disorder' or 'brain
disease' have had their opportunities to resolve the debate
over the validity of their dubious ‘diagnosis’ once and for
all, but they have failed to take advantage of those
opportunities - in Professor Cohen's words, "The study that
needs to be done is so simple: Just compare ADHD-diagnosed
kids who haven't been medicated with a similar age group of
'normal' kids who haven't been diagnosed."
Then we'd know for sure, wouldn't we?
Could it be that the reason the proponents of biopsychiatry
will not make that obvious and simple comparison is that
they DARE NOT RISK IT?
------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not up to speed with The Candlelight Project and
would like to read about it from the beginning, please
visit the following web page and read from Parental
Intelligence Issue 49:
http://www.topica.com/lists/pintel/read
If you'd like to read The Parental Intelligence Report on
'ADHD', published May 2003, it's NOW ONLINE at:
http://www.adhd-report.com
To discover more of the truth about 'ADHD', please visit:
ADHD Fraud
http://www.adhdfraud.org/
Death From Ritalin
http://www.ritalindeath.com/
A.S.P.I.R.E.
http://www.aspire.us/
Wildest Colts Make the Best Horses
(Download a free copy of "A Colt of a Booklet" while you're
there!)
http://www.wildestcolts.com/
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
http://www.cchr.org/
Able Child - Parents for Label and Drug Free Education
http://ablechild.org/
Fight For Kids
http://www.fightforkids.org/
See you next week on the Candlelight Trail!
------------------------------------------------------------
"The essence of our effort to see that every child has a
chance must be to assure each an equal opportunity, not to
become equal, but to become different - to realize whatever
unique potential of mind, body, and spirit he or she
possesses." - John Fischer
------------------------------------------------------------
Paradox - The Natural Law of Childrearing
by Jerry R. Levinson
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about raising and
educating children that is so profound and all-pervasive
that it must be changed if children are to become the
glorious creatures that nature intended.
To put it very simply, children do not need to be "raised"
or "educated." Just as a child does not have to be "taught"
to speak or to walk, he does not need to be "taught" almost
all the things we as parents and teachers usually spend our
time trying to teach. What's more, not only are our attempts
to teach children what we want them to learn unnecessary,
they are usually paradoxical in their effects and lead
eventually to the opposite of what was intended.
The human organism has been evolving on this planet for
about three billion years and our genetic structure provides
each of us with a unique path to actualize our awesome
inborn potential. The reason that almost no one actually
actualizes their full potential is because we, as children,
are not allowed to follow our inborn path. We are forced to
follow parents who believe that they know how we should
feel, think and act.
Many parents do not know the truth about either themselves
or their children. They are not told that all of us are born
wise, creative and intelligent; with an inherited
"knowledge" about how to develop, in much the same way that
we all are programmed to physically develop in our own
unique way and time.
We all have goals for our children. We want them to be
happy, loving, well educated, caring, giving, prosperous,
etc., and because these goals are so important to us, we set
out to bring them into being. The problem with this goal
directedness is the law of paradox, which states that any
attempt to directly actualize a goal with a child will lead
utimately to a result directly opposite from the one
intended. The law of paradox applies to most parental
interventions because the fundamental nature of children is
rooted in the totality of existence, and almost all parents
operate from their fear-based rational intellects. A limited
rational mind cannot effectively raise a multi-dimensional,
universal based consciousness.
For example, let's look at the goal that children become
sharing and giving adults. This is an admirable goal and one
that would be manifested by all children as they reach
adulthood if they were allowed to follow their natural,
inborn blueprint. Most parents, however, do not trust in the
basic goodness and innocence of their children. They believe
that their children have to be taught to share. So when
little Sally does not want to share her new doll with her
sister, she is often forced to do so by her well meaning
parents, thinking that she will learn to be a sharing or
giving person by this outside influence.
So what happens to little Sally? What does she really learn
from being forced to share? She learns that she is not
acceptable to her parents the way she is. She learns that
wanting to possess something only for herself is wrong. She
learns her parents don't understand or support her in having
what she wants. She learns her parents are insensitive or
uncaring about her feelings about being forced to do
something she doesn't want to do. She learns that it is more
important to consider someone else's feelings than her own.
What she certainly does not learn is the feeling of true
giving or wanting to share, because that can only come
naturally, as the child matures and is respected first in
her not wanting to share. So in this case the law of
paradox states that only the child who is fully allowed to
possess and be as "selfish" as she wishes will eventually
contact the inner richness of self from where true sharing
comes, and that the child who is forced to share before she
is ready will only learn the behaviour (act) of sharing, but
will never contact the inner abundance that makes true
sharing possible.
To repeat, any attempt by parents to "teach" personal
qualities such as honesty, responsibility, being loving,
gentleness, perseverance, independence or intelligence will
backfire. The only things that can ever be taught directly
to a child are behaviours; but the real underlying human
qualities that support these admirable personal attributes
can never be taught since they are already pre-programmed
and will only emerge as a natural result of a loving
environment.
Let's take a look at the desire parents have that their
children become independent adults. When five-year-old Jimmy
is afraid to go in the other room to meet the guests who
have just arrived, and wants to hold onto his mommy's dress
and hide instead, his mommy feels embarrassed and thinks
that he should learn to be a "big boy." She fears that if
she "indulges" his fear he will remain a wimp for the rest
of his life. She must teach him to be independent.
So she "encourages" him to go and talk to the guests, with
some combination of anger, threats, blame or perhaps some
promise of praise or reward. In most cases she will succeed,
and Jimmy will behave like a model independent child. This
"act" may reinforce mother's false belief that she has
helped Jimmy take a step towards true independence. But as
you might already see, she has not done anything except use
her superior emotional and physical power to force Jimmy to
act against himself and perform the desired "big boy"
behaviour. He has not learned anything about true
independence, which comes slowly and naturally as a result
of having one's dependency needs met first, but has merely
learned to pretend and to please and to make someone else's
reality more important than his own.
The same principle, which in other words is to trust the
inborn wisdom of our children and not to try to alter or
control it, applies to our understanding of our children's
educational needs as well. Children are born curious,
intelligent and eager to learn. By age three, most children
have, without effort, mastered our incredibly complex
language system, one of the greatest learning challenges in
life. The manner in which language is learned is the way
nature intended all education to come about; namely that it
occur naturally in the course of daily living, that it be
part of the immediate needs of the child, that it be self
motivated and unevaluated by others, and that it be
interesting and involving. Play is the essential medium for
childhood learning.
The so-called education that occurs in school has absolutely
nothing to do with the personal reality of children and has
therefore nothing to do with true learning. When a child is
forced, as he is in school, to put his own reality aside to
attend to his teacher's agenda, he is damaged. He is forced
to leave his rich inner world and pay attention to something
that is often boring and irrelevant, out of fear of the
consequences of displeasing his parents and teachers and
being made fun of by the other students.
Since our educational system does not understand how real
learning occurs, the law of paradox runs rampant in our
schools, teaching our children everything we don't want them
to learn. Much too often what children really learn in
school is: (a) that true learning is boring and tedious and
irrelevant; (b) that success in life depends on forcing
oneself to sit quietly and endure endless hours of boredom;
(c) that nobody, including one's own parents, can be counted
on to either understand or offer protection against this
daily assault against the child's real needs, and (d) most
sadly, that this is what life is all about - being forced to
be away from the ones you love and having to endure the
sterility and meaninglessness of this alternate reality.
The good news is that there are now more and more parents
who intuitively know what their children need and know how
damaging "normal" parenting and schooling has been. These
parents have often suffered deeply in their own childhoods
and have explored their pain enough to get clear of many of
the illusions of our child-toxic world. It is this
increasing number of enlightened parents who hold out the
real hope for our troubled planet, because even a few
children raised in a manner that allows for their full
manifestation of inner magnificence, will be able by the
force of their love, wisdom and personal power, to truly
heal the world.
Jerry Levinson is a Registered Psychologist and parent who
lives near South Slocan, British Columbia.
Copyright © 2003 Life Media
Reprinted with permission from Natural Life Magazine,
January, 1996.
http://www.life.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
======= HIGHLY RECOMMENDED BY PARENTAL INTELLIGENCE! =======
------------------------------------------------------------
************************************************************
LIVING FREE: HOW TO BEAT THE SYSTEM - AND GROW RICH
by Phil Gosling - "Britain's most successful author
no-one's ever heard of".
Read Part One AND Part Two of this truly enlightening
12-part educational course ABSOLUTELY FREE.
Please visit:
http://shrinkmylink.com/pmc
************************************************************
************************************************************
THE UNCOMMON KNOWLEDGE SELF-CONFIDENCE COURSE
by Roger Elliott and Mark Tyrrell
How would you like to feel you could do anything?
Sign up here for the FREE 6-part Self Confidence Course:
http://shrinkmylink.com/rmc
************************************************************
************************************************************
DOUG BENCH'S BRAIN STUFF
Learn the SCIENCE of PERMANENT Self-Motivation. So you
don't have to go back again and again and again, and spend
more and more and more money for a short term fix!
Scientific facts do not lie and do not fail, and neither
will you! Guaranteed!
*** 7 Mini-Science Lessons for Maxi-Success ***
This Course is FREE, and a great starting point for you to
run toward the Science of Permanent Self-Motivation.
Subscribe to the 7 Mini-Science Lessons for Maxi-Success
course and to Doug Bench's free Neuroscience Self-Motivation
News at his Science for Success website:
http://shrinkmylink.com/tmc
************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECTS OF INTEREST
The Natural Child Project
Parent, homeschooler, author and psychologist Jan Hunt
shares her vision of the world in which all children are
treated with dignity, respect, understanding and compassion.
http://www.naturalchild.org/
The Parenting Project
A non-profit organization founded in 1995 by parent advocate
and mother of three Suzy Garfinkle Chevrier working to bring
parenting, empathy and nurturing skills education to all
school age children and teens.
http://www.parentingproject.org/
Project HappyChild
Penny Rollo Midas' extraordinary extravaganza of resources
for children and parents. Started in 1998, it's now more
than 7,000 pages and still growing!
http://www.happychild.org.uk/
Project Renaissance
Creative thinking pioneer Win Wenger's core mission is to
enable as many human beings as possible to become more than
a match for the situations, opportunities and problems or
difficulties that they find around them, and to enjoy a
richer quality of life and experience.
http://www.winwenger.com/
------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you feel motivated and inspired after reading this
week's issue of Parental Intelligence!!
Issue 65 will be published on 27 October 2003
PLEASE RECOMMEND PARENTAL INTELLIGENCE TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS
WHO HAVE CHILDREN - THEY'LL THANK YOU FOR IT!
Do you have any comments or suggestions? Would you
like to contribute an article?
mailto:quauss-@hotmail.com
Please include the words "Parental Intelligence" in the
subject line.
This newsletter is never sent unsolicited. You are
receiving it because you requested a subscription, or it
has been forwarded to you by a friend.
If you're not a subscriber and you'd like to subscribe,
please either visit
http://www.topica.com/lists/pintel
or send a blank email to:
pintel-s-@topica.com
If you want to unsubscribe for any reason, please see the
unsubscribe instructions at the end of this newsletter.
Copyright (c) 2003, Bob Collier except where indicated
otherwise.
Published by:
Bob Collier
3 Goldie Place
Kambah
CANBERRA
ACT 2902
Australia
mailto:quauss-@hotmail.com
Have a happy and successful day!
------------------------------------------------------------
"Who is this bloke?" Find out more about the publisher of
Parental Intelligence by sending a blank email to:
bobco-@getresponse.com
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
 |
|
