moralist

fasting linked to healing...

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fasting-for-two-days-could-regenerate-the-immune-system-according-to-research-9506168.html

Fasting for two days could regenerate the immune system, according to research
Valter Longo, Professor of Gerontology and the Biological Sciences at the University of Southern California, said:“It gives the OK for stem cells to go ahead and begin proliferating and rebuild the entire system.

“And the good news is that the body got rid of the parts of the system that might be damaged or old, the inefficient parts, during the fasting.”

He added: “Now, if you start with a system heavily damaged by chemotherapy or aging, fasting cycles can generate, literally, a new immune system.”

The study also found that fasting reduces levels of the enzyme PKA, an effect which is known to increase longevity in simple organisms, as well as levels of the hormone IGF-1, which has been linked to ageing, tumour progression and cancer risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Also gives the digestive system a well earned rest.

I've done some 3 day fasts. Would like to try a 7 day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fast when I get involved in work so it's usually just one day, so I don't think that's a whole lot of benefit even though it's done frequently. I just feel more focused and can get more done. If I eat lunch then I want to take a nap, and that doesn't cut it for work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, getting through the first day of a fast is the most difficult. After that I can breeze though the remaining time I'm on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fasting-for-two-days-could-regenerate-the-immune-system-according-to-research-9506168.html

Fasting for two days could regenerate the immune system, according to research
Valter Longo, Professor of Gerontology and the Biological Sciences at the University of Southern California, said:“It gives the OK for stem cells to go ahead and begin proliferating and rebuild the entire system.

“And the good news is that the body got rid of the parts of the system that might be damaged or old, the inefficient parts, during the fasting.”

He added: “Now, if you start with a system heavily damaged by chemotherapy or aging, fasting cycles can generate, literally, a new immune system.”

The study also found that fasting reduces levels of the enzyme PKA, an effect which is known to increase longevity in simple organisms, as well as levels of the hormone IGF-1, which has been linked to ageing, tumour progression and cancer risk.

This is an example of scientists discovering something that was known for thousands of years and passing it off as something new.

Definition of fasting:

Fasting is living on air and water and sleep and body resources and nothing else. Not to be confused with starving, which means body resources are run out. There is no such thing as a fruit fast or a juice fast; these are diets, not fasts.

Fasting can be used as an application of the Great Law of Life. It is essentially rest. There are 4 kinds of rest.

1. physical rest

2. sensory rest

3. mental/emotional rest

4. physiological rest (fasting)

Total rest is all 4. To get the most benefit from fasting, you are supposed to rest all 4 ways. Then the power of healing is at maximum. Being up and around doing things during a fast reduces the power of the fast.

There is a suggestion (I don't know if this is true) that during a fast, the entire digestive system becomes a system of elimination. The theory is it can be in digestion mode or in elimination mode, not both.

If you are healthy, you don't need to fast and probably won't benefit from fasting. Fasting is for people who are too sick to eat. There is the elective fast and there is the natural fast. The elective fast means you are hungry and you are fasting anyway. The natural fast means you are not hungry and your body does not want food and you have an aversion to food (you are too sick to eat) and then it is natural to fast. At least one doctor who has experience supervising fasts said the elective fast is always wrong and the natural fast is always right.

If you are up and around and as energetic as a house on fire, what the 773H do you want with the above mentioned total rest?

A fast can be complete or incomplete. A complete fast is a fast until the return of hunger. Hunger returns when either of 2 things happens.

1. You are no longer sick and therefore have no need to continue fasting.

2. Your body resources are running low; then hunger returns to prevent you from starving.

Fasting is not starving (no matter what doctors and wikipedia say). The difference is:

During a fast, the body is living on its own internal resources, calories from fat, vitamins from the liver, minerals from bone marrow, etc.

During starving, the body has run out of resources. Your body will signal you before this happens.

During a fast the gut goes to sleep. The longer the fast, the more it goes to sleep. In Star Trek there was a Bajoran ritual that involved fasting and they wanted to pig out on the first meal after the fast. Whoever wrote that Star Trek episode didn't know anything about fasting. There are several schools of thought on the best way to come off a fast.

1. Franklin Hall: The breaking is the same length as the fast; example 40 days fasting, 40 days breaking.

2. Herbert Shelton: The breaking is half the length of the fast; example 40 days fasting, 20 days breaking.

3. Klassen: The breaking is one quarter the length of the fast; example 40 days fasting, 10 days breaking.

Of these 3, Shelton had by far the most experience supervising fasts, 40,000 fasts. I doubt Klassen had any experience supervising fasts.

Speaking for myself from the experience of doing numerous fasts with the longest being 22 days, I found that if I avoid all things that abnormally stimulate hunger, then hunger comes back gradually and never exceeds the amount of food that is safe to eat. By "things that abnormally stimulate hunger", I include:

1. concentrated sugar

2. salt

3. oil

4. anything made with flour

5. dairy

6. unbound glutamate

7. aspartame

8. appetizers

9. anything with high calorie density

I think most of those things should always be avoided (or minimized), not just while breaking a fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fasting-for-two-days-could-regenerate-the-immune-system-according-to-research-9506168.html

Fasting for two days could regenerate the immune system, according to research
Valter Longo, Professor of Gerontology and the Biological Sciences at the University of Southern California, said:“It gives the OK for stem cells to go ahead and begin proliferating and rebuild the entire system.

“And the good news is that the body got rid of the parts of the system that might be damaged or old, the inefficient parts, during the fasting.”

He added: “Now, if you start with a system heavily damaged by chemotherapy or aging, fasting cycles can generate, literally, a new immune system.”

The study also found that fasting reduces levels of the enzyme PKA, an effect which is known to increase longevity in simple organisms, as well as levels of the hormone IGF-1, which has been linked to ageing, tumour progression and cancer risk.

This is an example of scientists discovering something that was known for thousands of years and passing it off as something new.

Definition of fasting:

Fasting is living on air and water and sleep and body resources and nothing else. Not to be confused with starving, which means body resources are run out. There is no such thing as a fruit fast or a juice fast; these are diets, not fasts.

Fasting can be used as an application of the Great Law of Life. It is essentially rest. There are 4 kinds of rest.

1. physical rest

2. sensory rest

3. mental/emotional rest

4. physiological rest (fasting)

Total rest is all 4. To get the most benefit from fasting, you are supposed to rest all 4 ways. Then the power of healing is at maximum. Being up and around doing things during a fast reduces the power of the fast.

There is a suggestion (I don't know if this is true) that during a fast, the entire digestive system becomes a system of elimination. The theory is it can be in digestion mode or in elimination mode, not both.

If you are healthy, you don't need to fast and probably won't benefit from fasting. Fasting is for people who are too sick to eat. There is the elective fast and there is the natural fast. The elective fast means you are hungry and you are fasting anyway. The natural fast means you are not hungry and your body does not want food and you have an aversion to food (you are too sick to eat) and then it is natural to fast. At least one doctor who has experience supervising fasts said the elective fast is always wrong and the natural fast is always right.

If you are up and around and as energetic as a house on fire, what the 773H do you want with the above mentioned total rest?

A fast can be complete or incomplete. A complete fast is a fast until the return of hunger. Hunger returns when either of 2 things happens.

1. You are no longer sick and therefore have no need to continue fasting.

2. Your body resources are running low; then hunger returns to prevent you from starving.

Fasting is not starving (no matter what doctors and wikipedia say). The difference is:

During a fast, the body is living on its own internal resources, calories from fat, vitamins from the liver, minerals from bone marrow, etc.

During starving, the body has run out of resources. Your body will signal you before this happens.

During a fast the gut goes to sleep. The longer the fast, the more it goes to sleep. In Star Trek there was a Bajoran ritual that involved fasting and they wanted to pig out on the first meal after the fast. Whoever wrote that Star Trek episode didn't know anything about fasting. There are several schools of thought on the best way to come off a fast.

1. Franklin Hall: The breaking is the same length as the fast; example 40 days fasting, 40 days breaking.

2. Herbert Shelton: The breaking is half the length of the fast; example 40 days fasting, 20 days breaking.

3. Klassen: The breaking is one quarter the length of the fast; example 40 days fasting, 10 days breaking.

Of these 3, Shelton had by far the most experience supervising fasts, 40,000 fasts. I doubt Klassen had any experience supervising fasts.

Speaking for myself from the experience of doing numerous fasts with the longest being 22 days, I found that if I avoid all things that abnormally stimulate hunger, then hunger comes back gradually and never exceeds the amount of food that is safe to eat. By "things that abnormally stimulate hunger", I include:

1. concentrated sugar

2. salt

3. oil

4. anything made with flour

5. dairy

6. unbound glutamate

7. aspartame

8. appetizers

9. anything with high calorie density

I think most of those things should always be avoided (or minimized), not just while breaking a fast.

Has this wonderful theory been backed up by a longitudinal clinical study? Many, many have a wonderful theory. Only a few have sound clinical corroboration.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this wonderful theory been backed up by a longitudinal clinical study? Many, many have a wonderful theory. Only a few have sound clinical corroboration.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What wonderful theory? Be specific. Fasting includes many subtopics. It is impossible to answer such a vague question.

Shelton's books about fasting include:

1. His own experience -- 40,000 fasts.

2. The experience of others -- more thousands of fasts.

3. Some scientific studies, those that existed in his time.

Shelton knew probably all there was to know about fasting up to his time in history. Goldhamer takes it from there.

One does the best one can with the best quality information one can get. Can you offer something better?

There is the study done by Dr. Alan Goldhamer but you were not impressed. Would you be impressed by any study on fasting that showed benefit? I doubt.

If it was a drug, you would not require clinical evidence. You said a time or 2 that when you were very young you had pneumonia and you took an antibiotic and without it you would have died. That is no better than proof by youtube. How do you know you would have died? Lots of people survived pneumonia without a drug (doctors Trall, Tilden, Shelton). With Shelton, pneumonia was reversed in 3 to 5 days without anything that you would call treatment. You are using a fallacy that you are so fond of pointing out: 2nd event happened after 1st event, therefore 2nd event was caused by 1st event.

What if someone said they had pneumonia and fasted and said without the fast they would have died? Would you accept that as evidence? That is the quality of evidence you accept for a drug.

I think you are just plain predjudiced against fasting.

And I think you know next to nothing about fasting. In a post some time ago you said fasting couldn't help a problem with digestion. That is gross ignorance. Fasting gives the gut a rest so it has a chance to recover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this wonderful theory been backed up by a longitudinal clinical study? Many, many have a wonderful theory. Only a few have sound clinical corroboration.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What wonderful theory? Be specific. Fasting includes many subtopics. It is impossible to answer such a vague question.

Shelton's books about fasting include:

1. His own experience -- 40,000 fasts.

2. The experience of others -- more thousands of fasts.

3. Some scientific studies, those that existed in his time.

Shelton knew probably all there was to know about fasting up to his time in history. Goldhamer takes it from there.

One does the best one can with the best quality information one can get. Can you offer something better?

There is the study done by Dr. Alan Goldhamer but you were not impressed. Would you be impressed by any study on fasting that showed benefit? I doubt.

If it was a drug, you would not require clinical evidence. You said a time or 2 that when you were very young you had pneumonia and you took an antibiotic and without it you would have died. That is no better than proof by youtube. How do you know you would have died? Lots of people survived pneumonia without a drug (doctors Trall, Tilden, Shelton). With Shelton, pneumonia was reversed in 3 to 5 days without anything that you would call treatment. You are using a fallacy that you are so fond of pointing out: 2nd event happened after 1st event, therefore 2nd event was caused by 1st event.

What if someone said they had pneumonia and fasted and said without the fast they would have died? Would you accept that as evidence? That is the quality of evidence you accept for a drug.

I think you are just plain predjudiced against fasting.a'a

And I think you know next to nothing about fasting. In a post some time ago you said fasting couldn't help a problem with digestion. That is gross ignorance. Fasting gives the gut a rest so it has a chance to recover.

The hypothesis that fasting strengthens the immune system. I would like to see a rigorous clinical study backing that up. Do you have one? If so please provide a reference.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hypothesis that fasting strengthens the immune system. I would like to see a rigorous clinical study backing that up. Do you have one? If so please provide a reference.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wouldn't that make it a theory?

Are you interested in fasting?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fasting does give the digestive system a rest. That's probably a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hypothesis that fasting strengthens the immune system. I would like to see a rigorous clinical study backing that up. Do you have one? If so please provide a reference.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Did you read the first message in this thread? It mentions research about immune system.

Even if you had the rigorous clinical study that you ask for to your satisfaction, you would still be clueless about how fasting works. You might acknowledge that fasting works; you would not have the foggiest clue how. You might hazard the guess that fasting is some kind of stimulant to the immune system. Not so. Fasting is rest. Fasting is not a stimulant. Fasting does nothing. The whole idea of fasting is to do nothing. In this profound state of rest, the body has a chance to heal itself and strengthen itself and this might include strengthening the immune system, whatever that is.

While you are waiting for a clinical study, get yourself a disease of the type that the immune system is supposed to prevent, and then do a fast, and watch how quickly the disease stops. I don't know if that has anything to do with immune system. Doctors who supervise fasts usually don't talk about immune system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The premise is the body needs rest and fasting provides for it. That is speculation and hypothesis but I've never heard of fasting promoting disease. Some cancer patients are wrongly encouraged to consume a lot of calories--never mind the type of food that those come from. That can be/might be disastrous two ways maybe. It's not fasting of course but some foods are alleged to promote some cancers. Modern medicine is woefully deficient in nutrition. Doctors convince themselves and their patients that they are just as expert in nutrition as in any other aspect of medical methodology when most don't know crap. They weren't taught nor did they learn.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hypothesis that fasting strengthens the immune system. I would like to see a rigorous clinical study backing that up. Do you have one? If so please provide a reference.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Did you read the first message in this thread? It mentions research about immune system.

My time on earth is limited. The only research I care to read about is longitudinal clinical studies with well founded controls.

That means I read well refereed scientific or medical journals. I am not interested in hunches or in hypotheses lacking solid corroboration.

By and large, nutrition is in the same state as was psychology before high grade brain chemistry research was done and before proper scanning devices were developed. In short, nutrition is still in the Dark Ages. What we have is pop-nutrition lacking sound clinical study. That means double blind studies and longitudinal studies with rigorous controls.

There is far too much bullshit about nutrition being bruited about.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, you have no interest in this subject. You ride in on your epistemological horse, but having made your point, for what it's worth, fail to ride out claiming knowledge where you actually have none--i.e., the overall scientific status of nutrition. You could do much the same about aspirin, even with its much narrower focus. Nutrition is what people eat and they eat all kinds of stuff prepared all kinds of ways in all kinds of amounts and combinations. Your only legitimate criticism of Jerry is he says there are two kinds of fasting, one good and one bad. However, that's not what you asked proof about; you asked about proof related to fasting generally meaning you really didn't read and understand what he wrote. I would ask Jerry, where is your evidence one is good and one is bad for I've never heard before that any fasting is harmful? So, Bob, have you ever read fasting is harmful? Do you care? I'd say fasting is bad because it is work I've not enough incentive to do considering the state of knowledge and that my own interest is caloric restriction and avoiding sugar, rice, potatoes and food in a box amongst other things. I don't pig out because there are no scientific studies that show--or I'm aware of--not pigging out is bad for me. Since we don't live in a feast or famine culture I have no need to pile on the fat for times of want even though my brain is biologically wired to eat all I can when I can. I prefer my beautiful, lean and hard body and living until I'm 111 sexually harassing my nurses who keep slipping me my daily Viagra. If you can't contribute here to that, please scat.

--Brant

but if you know something better than Viagra, please let me know; that shit's expensive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, you have no interest in this subject. You ride in on your epistemological horse, but having made your point, for what it's worth, fail to ride out claiming knowledge where you actually have none--i.e., the overall scientific status of nutrition.

--Brant

That epistemological horse delivered your computer to your desk. Do not neigh-say it.

I have epistemological standards which is why I tend to disregard pop-psychology and pop-nutrition.

If you want reliable conclusions look to conclusions drawn from well crafted double blind studies and longitudinal studies with proper control groups.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My time on earth is limited. The only research I care to read about is longitudinal clinical studies with well founded controls.

That means I read well refereed scientific or medical journals. I am not interested in hunches or in hypotheses lacking solid corroboration.

By and large, nutrition is in the same state as was psychology before high grade brain chemistry research was done and before proper scanning devices were developed. In short, nutrition is still in the Dark Ages. What we have is pop-nutrition lacking sound clinical study. That means double blind studies and longitudinal studies with rigorous controls.

There is far too much bullshit about nutrition being bruited about.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If you are concerned about not wasting your limited time on earth, you should not waste your time reading those studies if they existed, because you have no interest in fasting.

I also have a limited time on earth. I don't have time to wait for those studies to be done.

Nutrition is a different subject. Fasting is not nutrition. Fasting sometimes helps nutrition by improving digestion and assimilation. I think you are exaggerating when you say nutrition is in the Dark Ages. Dr. Russell Blaylock is up to his ears with studies on nutrition. Dr. Fuhrman gets practical results with nutrition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My time on earth is limited. The only research I care to read about is longitudinal clinical studies with well founded controls.

That means I read well refereed scientific or medical journals. I am not interested in hunches or in hypotheses lacking solid corroboration.

By and large, nutrition is in the same state as was psychology before high grade brain chemistry research was done and before proper scanning devices were developed. In short, nutrition is still in the Dark Ages. What we have is pop-nutrition lacking sound clinical study. That means double blind studies and longitudinal studies with rigorous controls.

There is far too much bullshit about nutrition being bruited about.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If you are concerned about not wasting your limited time on earth, you should not waste your time reading those studies if they existed, because you have no interest in fasting.

a

Not true. I fast on occasion to get rid of the bloat and to clear my head. I do it for purely subjective reasons and I would not urge my kind of fasting on others. I have theory to offer. I do it for my own reasons, all subjective

Just because fasting clears my head is no reason to tell other people that it will clear theirs.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My time on earth is limited. The only research I care to read about is longitudinal clinical studies with well founded controls.

That means I read well refereed scientific or medical journals. I am not interested in hunches or in hypotheses lacking solid corroboration.

By and large, nutrition is in the same state as was psychology before high grade brain chemistry research was done and before proper scanning devices were developed. In short, nutrition is still in the Dark Ages. What we have is pop-nutrition lacking sound clinical study. That means double blind studies and longitudinal studies with rigorous controls.

There is far too much bullshit about nutrition being bruited about.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If you are concerned about not wasting your limited time on earth, you should not waste your time reading those studies if they existed, because you have no interest in fasting.

Not true. I fast on occasion to get rid of the bloat and to clear my head. I do it for purely subjective reasons and I would not urge my kind of fasting on others. I have theory to offer. I do it for my own reasons, all subjective

Just because fasting clears my head is no reason to tell other people that it will clear theirs.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It might help. If you don't want to help by relating your own experience why not ride out on the horse you rode in on? You can justify the trip that way, not sticking around. You are aware all you're doing is telling Jerry to shut up and others to too or not to pay him any attention? But by giving us this anecdotal information now you justify all your postings--information I and Jerry had to squeeze out of you. It's called sharing or trading.

--Brant

btw, if you trust rigorous studies too much you can hurt yourself by being part of a falsification experiment that falsifies even if that in itself is falsified thereafter for the next falsification experiment might really falsifiy when it's replicated (evidence does not prove anything, only implies a proof, unless direct observation is involved such as the effect of 100% O2 on a fire)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im posting not because I know about fasting or care much about it.

In 1982, a jury awarded $873,000 to the family of a patient who died while fasting under Mr Sheltons supervision.

Im drawing no real inferences from it.

He was also jailed many times for practicing medicine without a license. Interestingly he died of a neuro muscular disease after 17 yrs of attempting to improve his health. With fasting? I dont know.

As for myself its not so much about what I dont put in my body but my choices on what I eat. Ive never considered actual fasting, although Ive often gone hungry and do consider food choices essential to my good health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im posting not because I know about fasting or care much about it.

In 1982, a jury awarded $873,000 to the family of a patient who died while fasting under Mr Sheltons supervision.

Im drawing no real inferences from it.

He was also jailed many times for practicing medicine without a license. Interestingly he died of a neuro muscular disease after 17 yrs of attempting to improve his health. With fasting? I dont know.

As for myself its not so much about what I dont put in my body but my choices on what I eat. Ive never considered actual fasting, although Ive often gone hungry and do consider food choices essential to my good health.

There was an ugly incident where Shelton wanted the fast broken and the patient refused to break the fast, saying he had a message from God telling him to continue the fast. The patient died and Shelton got the blame. After this ugly incident, Shelton required all patients to agree to follow instructions before he would accept them, saying that if people want to kill themselves they can kill themselves at home.

About practising medicine without a licence, Shelton didn't believe in medicine and as he saw it he didn't practise medicine. I will let Shelton himself speak on that.

Had Jesus advised his followers to first graduate from a rabbinical school as preparation for preaching Christianity or had Martin Luther advised all young would-be Lutheran preachers to graduate from a Catholic college for training of priests before they could preach Protestantism, if these men had said to their followers: get your degree from a "respectable" college and earn the "right" to preach by acquiring the theology of the older and "recognized" theological schools, they would have adopted the same thing that these would-be Hygienists who study allopathic medicine as a preparation to practice Hygiene are doing. If one may best fit oneself for the fidelity and responsibility of marriage by a few years of libertinism or harlotry, then one may best fit oneself for the practice of Hygiene by graduating in allopathic medicine. First learn the techniques of poisoning the sick and you will be prepared to give them intelligent care!

Government should not decide who is and who is not a legit doctor. This is not a proper role of government. There should be no such thing as government licensing of doctors.

About Shelton's Parkinson's disease. Shelton was a pioneer and he made mistakes. Dr. Fuhrman speculates that his Parkinson's disease was caused by deficiency of omega-3. Shelton himself attributed it to overwork. He worked 100+ hours per week and never took vacations and lived a very stressful life. His patients who followed his instructions instead of his example did better than he did.

Shelton tried to beat Parkinson's disease by 2 40-day fasts and got worse each time. If his disease was caused by deficiency of omega-3, as Fuhrman suggests, fasting was a wrong thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government should not decide who is and who is not a legit doctor. This is not a proper role of government. There should be no such thing as government licensing of doctors.

What about preventing or prosecuting frauds?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government should not decide who is and who is not a legit doctor. This is not a proper role of government. There should be no such thing as government licensing of doctors.

What about preventing or prosecuting frauds?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Government does a poor job of stopping snake oil. Modern medicine is largely snake oil, approved by government and sometimes enforced by government. An example is in the USA, nutrition therapy is illegal and poison therapy is enforced by law. Government promotes quackery.

In a free market (which we don't have) doctors could be judged by their success rate in getting patients well and by the reputation of the school they got their stamp of approval from. The reputation of the school could be derived from the performance of the doctors the school turns out.

If a doctor falsely claimed a diploma from a school, the school could charge him with fraud.

Doctor schools would thrive or fold depending on the performance of the doctors they turn out. Those that thrive would in time be outcompeted by even better schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about some form of private or free market certification. Rather like Underwriter's Lab which is not a government agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...