Modern diseases might not be so modern

March 12th, 2013
submit to reddit Share

It is often claimed by various “alternative medicine” gurus that the diseases currently faced by humanity are largely the result of our civilization and artificial causes.   Common claims are that everything from genetically modified foods to our use of wireless devices are the reason things like cancer and heart disease exist.  (Apparently at one time, people were always in good health and thus never died, either.)

There is some, limited, truth to this, in that some diseases now have the chance to exist more often, simply because less people are killed by something else first.   Heart disease, cancer many other diseases become more common with age and therefore would not be as common in a time when many died at an earlier age, as a result of infectious disease and traumatic injury.  Other diseases exist in the population today because they can be treated, while in centuries past, they would have resulted in death.   Type 1 diabetes, for example, was once a death sentence, but can now be treated.

A few other diseases may be more common today as a result of lifestyle changes.   Yet even these diseases were not unheard of in earlier human history.   Although a sedentary lifestyle and high calorie intake is well known to be associated with heart disease, a recent study has discovered compelling evidence that atherosclerosis – the buildup of plaque in the heart, existed long before modern lifestyles.

Via the BBC:

A study in The Lancet of 137 mummies up to 4,000 years old found a third had signs of atherosclerosis.

Most people associate the disease, which leads to heart attacks and strokes, with modern lifestyle factors such as smoking and obesity.

But the findings may suggest a more basic human pre-disposition.

Previous studies have uncovered atherosclerosis in a significant number of Egyptian mummies but it had been speculated that they would have come from a higher social class and may have had luxurious diets high in saturated fat.

To try and get a better picture of how prevalent the disease was in ancient populations, the researchers used CT scans to look at mummies from Egypt, Peru, southwest America, and the Aleutian Islands in Alaska.

They found that 47 or 34% showed signs of definite or probably atherosclerosis.

Where the mummies’ arterial structure had survived, the researchers were able to attribute a definite case of atherosclerosis by looking for the tell-tale signs of vascular calcification.

In some cases, the arterial structure had not survived but the calcified deposits were still present in sites where arteries would have once been.

What is important about this data is that it comes from distinct populations, some of which were hunter-gatherers, who lived a decidedly non-luxurious lifestyle. The existence of these conditions had previously been known in a few mummies, but that could have easily been attributed to the fact that most of those mummified were from high social classes and would have lived a much different lifestyle than common people. This new research seems to show it is more common across lifestyle types.

Of course, this does not really change the fact that diet and exercise play a role in risk, and maintaining a healthy lifestyle is still the best way of prolonging life and health. It does go to show that nothing in biology is perfect and any attempt to completely eradicate the risk through lifestyle changes will be futile. Since evolutionary success only requires reproduction, there would be little evolutionary pressure toward a circulatory system that maintains good health into old age. Atherosclerosis, though influenced by environmental factors, just seems to be an inherent part of human biology.

Similarly, cancer, though sometimes called a “modern disease” caused by chemicals or artificial radiation, was known by the ancient Egyptians and Greeks and has been discovered in ancient mummies. There is no doubt cancer, in all its forms, existed long before modern times and even before humans. It appears to be another example of an inherent imperfection in biology. The mechanisms that govern cell reproduction are simply not perfect and are prone to failure. They work well most of the time, which, as far as evolution is concerned, is good enough.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to say how common diseases were and which causes of death were the most common, historically. It can certainly be known that diseases existed, and how common they may have been has been recorded, at least in circumstances where the symptoms were obvious. Today, when a death occurs in the developed world, there is a death certificate, and the cause is listed. If there is any doubt about the cause of death, such as when death is unexpected or outside a medical facility, an autopsy and investigation of the circumstances is typically preformed.

Yet this is a very modern practice. Prior to the 20th Century, most deaths occurred at home, with many receiving no formal medical care from a doctor in their last days. The exact nature of the disease may not have been properly diagnosed and pathology reports were rare. The causes of death often went unrecorded and medical history data for a person’s lifetime was non-existent.

As recently as the 1920′s, death records continued to contain extremely vague and unverifiable causes of death. Some of these include: “General debility,” “Don’t know,” “dropped dead,” “old age.” Even in cases where a more direct cause is noted, it is very difficult to know how accurate the diagnosis was in times before modern pathology. For example, the term “consumption” most properly means tuberculosis, but appears to have been used to describe almost any respiratory ailment, thus leading to terms like “miner’s consumption.” In other cases, the cause may be recorded as “fever” without giving any indication of what the disease may have been or “child birth,” but with no indication as to whether the death was caused by blood loss, infection, obstructed delivery or other reasons.

As a general rule, the claim that anything is an entirely “modern disease,” should be met with extreme skepticism.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 12th, 2013 at 2:33 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Good Science, History, Quackery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions

22 Responses to “Modern diseases might not be so modern”

  1. 1
    DV82XL Says:

    I agree. All we have done is trade the conditions caused by malnutrition and overwork with those caused by over eating and inactivity however the potential for the latter have always been with us and probably were manifesting in the upper classes even in the distant past.


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    George Says:

    I’m sure cancer is not new. It’s seen in animals and even fossils have evidence of cancers. It does look like one of those issues where “good enough” is usually all evolution calls for so the fact that cancer sometimes happens is there and won’t go away because life does not get cancer enough to stop reproduction very often.


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    Thomas H Says:

    Something like cancer, if it were entirely internal and didn’t have any kind of bulge, like stomach cancer or liver cancer or lung cancer, where it would get rapidly worse but you wouldn’t see the actual tumor sticking out. How would this be known to be cancer and not some other condition if it happened prior to MRI/X-ray? And is there any way to know and identify it as being cancer other than to examine it after death?


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    Brian-M Says:

    I’d say that HIV is a modern disease. :p


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    I'mnotreallyhere Says:

            Brian-M said:

    I’d say that HIV is a modern disease. :p

    Older than I had previously realised though.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    Matte Says:

    Concerning cancer in general and prostate cancer in particular, evidence of prostate cancer seems to be missing in mummies according to some reports I have read.

    But the question I ask myself in this case is:
    “Have they looked at the ‘pappies’”?


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    I'mnotreallyhere Says:

            Matte said:

    But the question I ask myself in this case is:
    “Have they looked at the ‘pappies’”?

    Go to your room and don’t come out until you’ve had a long, hard think about what you’ve done.

    Also : thanks for that estimate on the Fukushima decay.


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    Shafe Says:

            Matte said:

    Concerning cancer in general and prostate cancer in particular, evidence of prostate cancer seems to be missing in mummies according to some reports I have read.

    I seem to remember lower prostate cancer risk being associated with a higher frequency of ejaculation. Perhaps those mummified had a more stringent masturbation regimen than we practice in modern society.


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    DV82XL Says:

    The more pressing issue is not the appearance of new diseases as a result of modern life, but rather the reappearance of older ones due to the overuse of antibiotics and failure to maintain immunization for those diseases for which they are available. Unfortunately both these problems are a consequence of modern life in that the public has developed some very foolish attitudes concerning them. The fact is we have been living in a fool’s paradise for the last half century and few really understand the potential dangers of infections that cannot be treated, or that are permitted to get out of hand. I truly fear we will be taught a harsh object lesson on this subject in the not too distant future.


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    KitemanSA Says:

            Shafe said:

    I seem to remember lower prostate cancer risk being associated with a higher frequency of ejaculation. Perhaps those mummified had a more stringent masturbation regimen than we practice in modern society.

    Dude, these mummies had multiple wives and generally free access to the peons. Who would need a masturbation regimen?


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    Matte Says:

    Hmmm, I was wnodering if this argument is a doubble edged sword? Consider the facts that pathogens and illnesses co-evolve with us.

    The most obvious example is the annual flu, the immune system fights it off and remembers it (you don’t get sick more than once from the same strain even if you get infected again). However the year after (or a few if you are lucky) the pathogen has evolved to a form not recognised by your immune system and you are off in bed for a few days, again. Evolution in a petri dish (of the agar kind)?! Eat my agar plate you creationist kretin!

    Degenerative conditions are most likely abscent from the historic record due to the fact that today modern medicine (aided by blind altruism) have all but removed the selective pressures on the human population. Offspring that would not survive in the previous ages now do and so on. (I am not arguing against this, only stating this as a fact, mind.)

    Cancer is most likely more common these days than it used to be looking backwards through history. For a majority of malignant deceases the risk of contracting them is plainly due to age. Average lifespan is still increasing in the developed world.

    Our genom seems to have an inbuilt selfdestruct mechanism that limits the lifespan, though it is seriously unreliable. In Scandinavian countries the risk of contracting cancer is something like 44% which is close enough to 1 in 2, every second person will contract the illnes in one form or another in their lifetime.

    I can’t see it would be any diffrent in any other highly industrialised region of comparable average lifespan…

    So to conclude, if you believe in evolution why not in modern medicine too? If you don’t, why bother getting out of bed in the morning, I am sure your deity will fix everything for you sooner or later!?


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    DV82XL Says:

            Matte said:

    Hmmm, I was wondering if this argument is a double edged sword?

    You are right in the broad sense that indeed the patterns of illness and mortality found in any given population will to some extent be a reflection of the conditions that they are living in, but I don’t think that idea in and of itself is being argued.

    It is the contention of the Kumbaya-types (as Kevin O’Leary calls them) that ancient populations were healthier due to better diets and the lack of insults from exposure to an industrial environment and they use the incidence of cancer to make their point. This reasoning is false for all the factors others have mentioned above which can be summed up as mortality from other causes is now less than in the past. That is not to say that some cancers cannot be cause from exposure to carcinogens from industrial sources, however these are not the major cause of cancer.

    As was pointed out in the lead post, there is no question that lifestyle plays a role in general heath but that does not mean that the conditions caused by things like obesity and high stress were not present in the past.


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    Chris Says:

    Diseases like cancer and heart disease did exist in ancient times, but even amongst ancient populations, some were far healthier than others, as is the case today where the Japanese and Mediterranean peoples are amongst the worlds healthiest and least prone to disease.

    The Japanese island of Okinawa alone has about 457 centenarians (a person who lives to, or beyond the age of 100 years). http://www.odditycentral.com/travel/japans-okinawa-island-the-healthiest-place-on-earth.html Cancer and heart disease affects mainly those who are elderly (older than 50), therefore it is likely they would probably also have amongst the lowest rates of cancer and heart disease in the world. I would argue that on average ancient populations were probably healthier and had less disease than today (although those who DID get a disease probably died from it more often than they would have should they have contracted it today).

    However this does not mean that following a paleolithic diet is a waste of time just because there were populations in ancient times who were unhealthy, or that there are some today that are extremely healthy. You will find that those of today are so healthy because they still follow a paleolithic diet (and of course the added benefit of modern medicine occasionaly, when necessary, also helps). Similarly in ancient times, while many were healthy due to unrefined diets, there were still those who were unable to incorporate enough fish (omega 3) into their diet for example. They might not have been able to do so due to factors outside of their control (lik not having access to certain foods) and not like today where we do it just becasue we prefer junk food, despite having very easy access to all types of healthy food at our local supermarket.

    It is known for example that a vitamin C defficiency is a GREATER cause of heart disease than too much cholesterol. Very few common fruits/vegetables contain vitamin C in large amounts (citrus fruits being one of the few. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C#Plant_sources) Despite eating a varied diet rich in unrefined foods, a vitamin C defficiency, for example, could have therefore been relatively common in some ancient populations. Often a defficiency in only one nutrient can lead to disease.

    The Lancet study above says “a third had signs of atherosclerosis”, however having “signs” of atherosclerosis doesn’t always mean that they had severe atherosclerosis, or that they died from it. The study also looked at only 137 mummies which is not enough to tell a story of entire population groups.
    Another interesting point, if heart disease is more common in those over 50, or even over 40, then how can it be so common in these mummies if almost none of them lived to 40 ? (as was the case in those times and even 100 years ago)

    Also, just a guess here, but don’t various parts of the the body exibit calcification in a mummy in any case ?


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Chris said:

    Diseases like cancer and heart disease did exist in ancient times, but even amongst ancient populations, some were far healthier than others, as is the case today where the Japanese and Mediterranean peoples are amongst the worlds healthiest and least prone to disease.

    The Japanese island of Okinawa alone has about 457 centenarians (a person who lives to, or beyond the age of 100 years). http://www.odditycentral.com/travel/japans-okinawa-island-the-healthiest-place-on-earth.html Cancer and heart disease affects mainly those who are elderly (older than 50), therefore it is likely they would probably also have amongst the lowest rates of cancer and heart disease in the world. I would argue that on average ancient populations were probably healthier and had less disease than today (although those who DID get a disease probably died from it more often than they would have should they have contracted it today).

    Of course, health did vary quite a bit from one population to another. However, it’s important to remember that for most of human history, infectious disease killed far more than heart disease and cancer combined. Waterborne illness was very common, even in areas with relatively clean water, it still happened from time to time.

    Historically, scores died from disease like tuberculosis, scarlet fever etc. These were just very common.

    Also, before germ theory, it was simply not understood that it was important to keep wounds clean and so infections from injury was extremely common.

            Chris said:

    It is known for example that a vitamin C defficiency is a GREATER cause of heart disease than too much cholesterol. Very few common fruits/vegetables contain vitamin C in large amounts (citrus fruits being one of the few. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C#Plant_sources) Despite eating a varied diet rich in unrefined foods, a vitamin C defficiency, for example, could have therefore been relatively common in some ancient populations. Often a defficiency in only one nutrient can lead to disease.

    Severe vitamin C deficiency is scurvy. It’s a very unpleasant condition. You don’t die right away, but your body gradually breaks down, because it can’t synthesize collagen and so it can’t rebuild tissue. It starts with lethargy then wounds stop healing well, gums start to bleed.

    This was quite common in populations that lived in Northern Latitudes, where they had no access to fresh fruit and vegetables in the winter. They would live entirely on meat and go through mild scurvy almost seasonally.

    Of course, it got much worse during the age of exploration, when sailors ate almost exclusively salt cured meats for months on end and got no vitamin C at all. It wasn’t until the 1800′s that it was understood that citrus fruit could be used to prevent it and it wasn’t until the 1930′s that the actual mechanism started to be understood.

    But yes, historically, deficiencies were very common in vitamin C, iodine, folic acid and many other things.


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    Chris Says:

    I know the history of scurvy and Vitamin C, but I was actually referring to Vitamin C defficiencies causing, or contributing towards heart disease. This is a relatively new discovery, although it must have affected humans at various times in the past. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631578/

    The point to all of this, that I was trying to make, is just because ancient populations had similiar diseases to us and it was not totally unheard of, that does not discredit the benefits and the disease reduction abilities of the paleo diet. (I use the term ‘paleo diet’ to refer to the diet followed among populations at any time before the modern introduction of highly processed foods and NOT ONLY to the diet followed by hunter gatherers before the widespread flourishing of ancient agricultural practices about 5000 years ago).

    My point was that it IS likely that their cases of heart disease and cancer were less overall that it is nowdays (overall), despite lower life expectancies helping their stats in those times. I do however agree that infectious diseases KILLED far people. (If you got an infectious disease, or an infection that progressed far enough into the blood for it not to be killed by topical anti-septics applied to the wound). Do look so shocked. They DID have many natural anti-septic plant based medicinals in ancient times which were used DEPITE the fact that they may not have understood exactly what germs were, like we do today. Oh, yes, and water based diseases, etc were NOT as common as you may think, although they may have been more common than today. They were only “very common” in primitative cultures like those in Africa. If you look at advanced ancient civilizations like those of Mesapotamia, they even had flushing toilets. If you research cultures like these, you will see that they were often more advanced than what is imaginged when it came to basic hygeine and disease prevention, although treatment of severe infections/disease was less successful.


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    Chris (spelling correction) Says:

    I know the history of scurvy and Vitamin C, but I was actually referring to Vitamin C defficiencies causing, or contributing towards heart disease. This is a relatively new discovery, although it must have affected humans at various times in the past, often due to conditions outside of their control. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631578/

    The point to all of this, that I was trying to make, is just because ancient populations had similiar diseases to us and it was not totally unheard of, that does not discredit the benefits and disease reduction abilities of the paleo diet. (I use the term ‘paleo diet’ to refer to the diet followed among populations at any time before the modern introduction of highly processed foods and NOT ONLY to the diet followed by hunter gatherers before the widespread flourishing of ancient agricultural practices over 5000 years ago).

    My point was that it IS likely that their cases of heart disease and cancer were less (overall) than it is nowdays (overall), despite lower life expectancies helping their stats in those times. If you had a particular defficiency then it was normally limited to portions of a population, or portions of a continent and due to factors outside of your of control (like soil quality, climate, etc) and not due to highly processed food that is now so widely imposed on entire nations. I do however agree that infectious diseases KILLED far more people. (If you got an infectious disease, or an infection that progressed far enough into the blood for it not to be killed by topical anti-septics applied to the wound). Don’t look so shocked. They DID have many natural anti-septic plant based medicinals in ancient times which were used DESPITE the fact that they may not have understood exactly what germs were, or how their medicinals worked, like we do today. Oh, yes, and water based diseases, etc were NOT as common as you may think, although they may have been more common than they are today. They were only “very common” (as you said above) in primitative cultures like those in Africa (as they still are in Africa today). If you look at advanced ancient civilizations like those of Mesapotamia, they even had flushing toilets. If you research cultures like these, you will see that they were often more advanced than what is imaginged when it came to basic hygeine and disease prevention, although treatment of severe infections/disease was less successful of they were advanced enough. People probably also had stronger immune systems than they do today, and were therefore less prone to getting infected in the first place. You just have to look at probiotics found in raw, unpasteurized milk and yohurt (if made under clean conditions) and their effect at boosting the immune system by controlled bad bacteria in the gut. That’s just one example. Our modern food is truly DEAD in every sence of the word.


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    DV82XL Says:

            Chris (spelling correction) said:

    My point was that it IS likely that their cases of heart disease and cancer were less (overall) than it is nowdays (overall), despite lower life expediencies helping their stats in those times.

    You can make no such statement without offering proof, which there is none, thus like much of what you assert it is pure fantasy.

            Chris (spelling correction) said:

    If you research cultures like these, you will see that they were often more advanced than what is imagined when it came to basic hygiene and disease prevention, although treatment of severe infections/disease was less successful of they were advanced enough.

    Some upper-class homes had better facilities, but you cannot extend that to the populations as a whole, most of who were using far less sanitary conditions. Again you are asserting unsupported nonsense claiming these civilizations had adequate treatments for infectious diseases. In fact the historical record if full of reports of epidemics.

            Chris (spelling correction) said:

    You just have to look at probiotics found in raw, unpasteurized milk and yohurt (if made under clean conditions) and their effect at boosting the immune system by controlled bad bacteria in the gut. That’s just one example. Our modern food is truly DEAD in every sense of the word.

    More rubbish, it is highly unlikely that the consumption of raw milk had any benefit greater than the dangers it represented.

    As usual, your idea of ‘research’ is to read alternative health websites and believe everything you see there without question. You are an uneducated ignoramus of the first water.

    P.S. Try and use a spell-checker before posting.


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    Chris Says:

    DV82XL what “proof” do YOU ever bring to the table?

    There are different types of infectious diseases, for example water born and air born.
    Air born are more tricky to control once a portion of the population is infected since they spread via air (eg. the flu virus, which by the way CAN be severely limited if done at the source by eliminating the raising and consumption of pork and ducks and their close physical proximity to humans which is unavoidable when farming them and eating them), but water born and food born come down in many cases to simple good hygeine (i.e. don’t **** near your own watering hole, or food source). You should try it sometime.

    Raw milk is only dangerous when it comes from farms with unsanitary conditions.
    Thousands of people still drink it every day in America and on farms all over the developed world and it is not ‘dangerous’ to them, or to my family, so why don’t you PROVE it’s dangerous?

    PROVE it’s dangerous Mr. Academic with the perfect spelling !
    PROVE WHAT YOU SAY.
    If it was so dangerous, then you probably would not even exist because your ancestors all drank it every day of their lives. Generation after generation after generation.

    The Hebrew Bible, from a purely historical, non-religious viewpoint, is a perfect example VARIOUS ancient hygeine laws being applied to entire populations. Maybe you should go and read some of them sometime.

    It is also a scientific FACT that good bacteria from yogurt and raw milk keeps bad bacteria in the gut under control and boosts the immune system.

    “Immune function and infections
    Some strains of LAB may affect pathogens by means of competitive inhibition (i.e., by competing for growth) and there is evidence to suggest that they may improve immune function by increasing the number of IgA-producing plasma cells, increasing or improving phagocytosis as well as increasing the proportion of T lymphocytes and Natural Killer cells.[42][43] Clinical trials have demonstrated that probiotics may decrease the incidence of respiratory tract infections[44] and dental caries in children.[45] LAB products might aid in the treatment of acute diarrhea, and possibly affect rotavirus infections in children and travelers’ diarrhea in adults,[42][43] but no products are approved for such indications.

    A 2010 study suggested that probiotics, by introducing “good” bacteria into the gut, may help maintain immune system activity, which in turn helps the body react more quickly to new infections. Antibiotics seem to reduce immune system activity as a result of killing off the normal gut bacteria.[46]”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probiotic#Immune_function_and_infections

    Regarding cancer and heart disease being less common overall in ancient times.
    You only have to look at smoking alone – which causes both these conditons, to see that the lack thereof in ancient times (amongst most ancient cultures) reduced their risk more than nowadays.
    You only have to look at London hospital records for example to see that not even that long ago (never mind in ancient times), a few decades ago, cases of heart disease were far less common. (before the introduction of brick margerine trans fats, fried food trans fats, highly refines sugars and carbohydrates which also causes increased weight gain which any ‘expert’ will admit contributes to these conditions)

    When alternative health websites have numerous references to clinical trials as well as long term population studies which can often be more valuable than short term trials, then YES, I will continue believing them.

    Grow a brain dumbass !


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    Chris Says:

    YOU cannot prove that : “the populations as a whole, most of who were using far less sanitary conditions.”
    You must be thinking of Africa, or India.


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    DV82XL Says:

            Chris said:

    DV82XL what “proof” do YOU ever bring to the table?

    You just don’t get it do you? I’m not the one making statements here you are and thus the onus of proof is on you.

    You want to know what you are kid, you’re bone lazy. Getting a real education is just too hard for you so you look for shortcuts that you think will make you equal to those that have done it the hard way. So you get sucked into websites that promise ‘ancient wisdom’ and access to information that THEY don’t want you to know and thereby salve your ego by thinking that hard eared knowledge is not that important.

    Your in the same class as the idiots who spend half their paycheck on a set of speaker wires and try and convince themselves that their ‘golden ears” can hear things that cannot be measured compensating in their own minds for the fact they have no real understanding of electronics.

    The same class as the guys that buy gadgets that promise more miles per gallon (but don’t) and argue with the people that build cars and race them. Again trying to compensate for not really knowing anything about engines, and of course anyone that tells them these things are worthless must be shills of Big Oil.

    You are all wannabes of the worse sort, you are nothing new to these pages: we’ve seen it all before.

    Like them you will be challenged to provide proof for everything you post because I will never let you forget that YOU are trying to convince US not the other way around. What someone like you believes is of no consequence to anyone, because you are of no consequence to anyone.


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    Chris Says:

    Most of the time, if not all the time I DO provide proof for what I say, unlike you.
    Also, unlike you I don’t misquote researchers either.

    Your comment above is more of the same proof-less, emotional, accusatory rhetoric.
    The very same crap you accusae me of posting !!!


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    DV82XL Says:

            Chris said:

    Most of the time, if not all the time I DO provide proof for what I say,

    You obviously have no real grasp of what the word ‘proof’ means.


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string QN3W2G to the field below:

*

Protected by WP Anti Spam