Beerball Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Generics on the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NyQuil Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I work in a retail pharmacy, Lipitor, Plavis and Concerta will be the biggest ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Woohoo! No more getting reamed when paying for our anti-psychotics anymore, guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 what I can't understand is why lipitor still has $5+billion of the statin market when there are 3 generics available in the class and a paucity of data showing any single statin to be superior. Do people just enjoy paying 10x more than they need to or are some docs really that heavily influenced by cute drug reps in tight clothes? plavix is a big deal...know plenty of people who need it but don't take it do to cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullpen Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Â When will Viag... I mean Proventil be on that list? Â (You know because of my asthma and all) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 what I can't understand is why lipitor still has $5+billion of the statin market when there are 3 generics available in the class and a paucity of data showing any single statin to be superior. Do people just enjoy paying 10x more than they need to or are some docs really that heavily influenced by cute drug reps in tight clothes? plavix is a big deal...know plenty of people who need it but don't take it do to cost. Â Behold the power of advertising. Â As for the docs being influence by cute drug reps in tight clothes, I don't think there's any question about that. I've never seen an ugly drug rep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 what I can't understand is why lipitor still has $5+billion of the statin market when there are 3 generics available in the class and a paucity of data showing any single statin to be superior. Do people just enjoy paying 10x more than they need to or are some docs really that heavily influenced by cute drug reps in tight clothes? plavix is a big deal...know plenty of people who need it but don't take it do to cost. Â It has gotta be aggressive marketing. Look at ARB's being prescribed for high-blood pressure. Now with the increased risk of cancer with ARB's... Shouldn't those drugs be reserved for the people who can't tolerate say ACE inhibitors? It would be win-win for the patient... Don't have to spend big money on name brand drugs when a generic is available and will lower the cancer risk. Â I have been on BP meds for over 20 years, since my late teens early 20's... I still remember when my Doc suggested I try Diovan... Because he had given my almost a year of free samples... Then stupidily I began paying after they ran out... Till I wisened up and said: "Hey... Lisinopril (prior Zestril when it was name brand) was working just fine!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 How long is the window on these patents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el Tigre Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 what I can't understand is why lipitor still has $5+billion of the statin market when there are 3 generics available in the class and a paucity of data showing any single statin to be superior. Do people just enjoy paying 10x more than they need to or are some docs really that heavily influenced by cute drug reps in tight clothes? plavix is a big deal...know plenty of people who need it but don't take it do to cost. Not all statins are the same. I tried taking generic simvastatin for a while but it made me feel like crap. My doctor switched me to Lipitor and the side effects went away and my cholesterol numbers are far better than they were with the generic. For me it's worth the extra money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 When does Charlie Sheen lose its patent; I want a cheaper generic face-melter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 How long is the window on these patents? In the US, drug patents give twenty years of protection, but they are applied for way before any clinical trials begin, so the effective life of a drug patent tends to be between seven and twelve years. Â Are drug patents too short? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Cool. By the time I need some of these meds, they should be real cheap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Not all statins are the same. I tried taking generic simvastatin for a while but it made me feel like crap. My doctor switched me to Lipitor and the side effects went away and my cholesterol numbers are far better than they were with the generic. For me it's worth the extra money. there are some differences in potency, no question. lipitor and crestor (2 of the last to market) are more potent. often the more potent statins cause more muscle pain at equivalent doses. because of their potency, you can often get by with lower doses. but many people are on lipitor or crestor that could tolerate higher doses of cheaper drugs and achieve target. old dr Jarvik ,psuedo cardiologist, has done a number on many folks. Â and yeah exiled, there's no reason to be on an expensive ARB if an ACE is tolerated and works. there is now a generic ARB, however i don't think it's hit the $4 list yet. to no ones surprise the brits have done studies comparing the available generics in these classes to the brand names without significant differences in outcomes. they've talked about a single pill containing a generic statin, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker and aspirin that would be dirt cheap and very useful to a large population of patients. not sure if it's available yet in europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 there are some differences in potency, no question. lipitor and crestor (2 of the last to market) are more potent. often the more potent statins cause more muscle pain at equivalent doses. because of their potency, you can often get by with lower doses. but many people are on lipitor or crestor that could tolerate higher doses of cheaper drugs and achieve target. old dr Jarvik ,psuedo cardiologist, has done a number on many folks. Wait, you're amazed that marketing works on people? And that people can be paid-off to support something when it's not in everyone's best interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 In the US, drug patents give twenty years of protection, but they are applied for way before any clinical trials begin, so the effective life of a drug patent tends to be between seven and twelve years. Â Are drug patents too short? Â No. Given the crisis in the health and medical industry... The patents should be shorter... Anything to lower the price for the medical consumer. In "race to the bottom", no industry should be immune. Â Who should prevail here? Main street or Wall Street. I understand that there are two sides to this agrument and benefits go along with each side of the argument, but why is the pain always off the backs of the consumer? Â Wait, you're amazed that marketing works on people? And that people can be paid-off to support something when it's not in everyone's best interest? Â True. I don't blame my doc... He is so busy that he probably doesn't even sit down to think what marketing forces are being applied in his office. He see how well it works... Maybe the docs our out of touch with the "pulse of their patients?" What is a 40 dollar co-pay RX a month to them compared to 5 bucks. Then way in all the "free" samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 True. I don't blame my doc... He is so busy that he probably doesn't even sit down to think what marketing forces are being applied in his office. He see how well it works... Maybe the docs our out of touch with the "pulse of their patients?" What is a 40 dollar co-pay RX a month to them compared to 5 bucks. Then way in all the "free" samples. Can't really blame the doc. Patients want/do what they want. And many have plans that have a co-pay so they don't have to care about the price of the drug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Can't really blame the doc. Patients want/do what they want. And many have plans that have a co-pay so they don't have to care about the price of the drug. Â Exactly! Â Â Why drive a Toyota Avalon when you can have a Lexus ES 350 for only 30 bucks more a month! Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Wait, you're amazed that marketing works on people? And that people can be paid-off to support something when it's not in everyone's best interest? not amazed at all, not even a little surprised....disappointed would be a better word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 I say put the pharmas out of business and go homeopathic. No more drug discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 No. Given the crisis in the health and medical industry... The patents should be shorter... Anything to lower the price for the medical consumer. In "race to the bottom", no industry should be immune. If that would happen you can forget about any attempts to research and develop any new and innovative medications...what? then the academics could do it? Trust me, I've been doing R&D in the industry for more than 20 years, no way they could do it. We discard 100's if not 1000's of compounds before we advance 1, and that takes years. The hurdle is very high, you need new, unprecedented mechanisms, safety, great pharmacokinetics to advance a compound...maybe 10 years from synthesis to the clinic, then spend tens if not hundreds of millions to test it in humans...the days of "me too" medications were over years ago. Drug companies feel compelled to hit home runs now, not singles...shortening patent lives would lead to no new drugs...but yeah, everything would be cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 If that would happen you can forget about any attempts to research and develop any new and innovative medications...what? then the academics could do it? Trust me, I've been doing R&D in the industry for more than 20 years, no way they could do it. We discard 100's if not 1000's of compounds before we advance 1, and that takes years. The hurdle is very high, you need new, unprecedented mechanisms, safety, great pharmacokinetics to advance a compound...maybe 10 years from synthesis to the clinic, then spend tens if not hundreds of millions to test it in humans...the days of "me too" medications were over years ago. Drug companies feel compelled to hit home runs now, not singles...shortening patent lives would lead to no new drugs...but yeah, everything would be cheap. Â Â Come on, get with the program. The government will create labs and crank out the new drugs without any of those evil profit-making corporations involved! Then we'll have free drugs for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) In the US, drug patents give twenty years of protection, but they are applied for way before any clinical trials begin, so the effective life of a drug patent tends to be between seven and twelve years. Â Are drug patents too short? Â Patents expire 20 years from their application filing date, which is usually 17 or so years from the date the application issues as a patent because it takes roughly 3 years from the day you apply for a patent to its grant. Â Pharma patents can get patent term extension for the time spent in FDA approval. It's a specific extension granted for pharma. Edited March 5, 2011 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) .the days of "me too" medications were over years ago. really...how bout lily's livalo released late 2010-the poster child for me too's. there have also been more than a few racemic mixtures separated to result in a "more effective" (and patent prolonging) enantiomer in recent years. then somehow the "old" drug that billions were made on becomes woefully inadequate... Edited March 5, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 No. Given the crisis in the health and medical industry... The patents should be shorter... Anything to lower the price for the medical consumer. In "race to the bottom", no industry should be immune. Â Â The "crisis" in health has little to do with the drugs being invented to deal with them and a lot more to do with a lack of preventative medicine. Wow, that is jargonistic. LEt me try in plain English: Americans are a bunch of fat f***s and if they'd get off their couches and eat better, there would not be a health crisis. Â Everyone bitches about health care problems but if you go to the average ER, 90% of the people are a self-inflicted mess of overeating and drug abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 The "crisis" in health has little to do with the drugs being invented to deal with them and a lot more to do with a lack of preventative medicine. Wow, that is jargonistic. LEt me try in plain English: Americans are a bunch of fat f***s and if they'd get off their couches and eat better, there would not be a health crisis. Â Everyone bitches about health care problems but if you go to the average ER, 90% of the people are a self-inflicted mess of overeating and drug abuse. Â +9872349872349872394823984239294865943286592183492138749 Â Â And don't forget....we need to have a pill for every conceivable, minor malady or inconvenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 not amazed at all, not even a little surprised....disappointed would be a better word. Why be disappointed? It's human nature. People (patients) want the latest and greatest and other people (doctors) want to give it to them, and if someone (insurance company) is willing to foot the bill, who are they to argue? If anything, you should be disappointed with patients who don't take care of themselves and need poly-pharmacy. Ultimately doctors are trying to treat patients the best way they can, and if that means they can't get people to take better care of themselves (which is usually the case), it's drugs, and the ones they think are best, but not necessarily cheapest. And people feed into that. Thankfully many drugs are coming off-patent. But will insurance rates decrease? Â And as for enantiomers (usually the L-form), they are safer and more potent. And eventually they come off-patent as well. Â If that would happen you can forget about any attempts to research and develop any new and innovative medications...what? then the academics could do it? Trust me, I've been doing R&D in the industry for more than 20 years, no way they could do it. We discard 100's if not 1000's of compounds before we advance 1, and that takes years. The hurdle is very high, you need new, unprecedented mechanisms, safety, great pharmacokinetics to advance a compound...maybe 10 years from synthesis to the clinic, then spend tens if not hundreds of millions to test it in humans...the days of "me too" medications were over years ago. Drug companies feel compelled to hit home runs now, not singles...shortening patent lives would lead to no new drugs...but yeah, everything would be cheap. :thumbsup The "crisis" in health has little to do with the drugs being invented to deal with them and a lot more to do with a lack of preventative medicine. Wow, that is jargonistic. LEt me try in plain English: Americans are a bunch of fat f***s and if they'd get off their couches and eat better, there would not be a health crisis. Â Everyone bitches about health care problems but if you go to the average ER, 90% of the people are a self-inflicted mess of overeating and drug abuse. +9872349872349872394823984239294865943286592183492138749 Â Â And don't forget....we need to have a pill for every conceivable, minor malady or inconvenience. Exactly. The problem is that people simply take worse and worse care of themselves as time goes on, figuring modern medicine will cure them of their lack of respect for their bodies, and thus they don't need to change their lifestyles. A large problem is that health plans are like buffets in that you can use health care dollars without regards to whether you need to or not. The example of the ER by "Peace" is a good one. Most of those visits are because people can go there without any repercussions, because it's not on their dime. What I find funny is Obama believing that by providing everyone with a PMD, ER utilization will decrease, as if you can see your PMD as easily as going to the ER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) Why be disappointed? It's human nature. People (patients) want the latest and greatest and other people (doctors) want to give it to them, and if someone (insurance company) is willing to foot the bill, who are they to argue? If anything, you should be disappointed with patients who don't take care of themselves and need poly-pharmacy. Ultimately doctors are trying to treat patients the best way they can, and if that means they can't get people to take better care of themselves (which is usually the case), it's drugs, and the ones they think are best, but not necessarily cheapest. And people feed into that. Thankfully many drugs are coming off-patent. But will insurance rates decrease? Â And as for enantiomers (usually the L-form), they are safer and more potent. And eventually they come off-patent as well just the type of thinking that propagates an unsustainable, failing system... and if isolated enantiomers are so superior (as you flippantly and generally proclaim) why not produce them at the outset? in most cases its a relatively simple stereochemical solution. Edited March 5, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 There is little difference between the average ER patient and Chernobyl survivor. Â And I'm hugely a fan of modern medicine BTW. I just wish it could focus on largely preventable diseases like say leukemia, instead of blowing tons of research money on heart disease which is usually avoidable if people would just live better. Â Obamacare's biggest failing to me, assuming I would have to live under its oppression, is that it doesn't force people to take care of themselves. How about this deal: You want the free government health care cheese? You have to workout 45 minutes a day 6 days a week at the government monitored gym. Piss off if you don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 There is little difference between the average ER patient and Chernobyl survivor. Â And I'm hugely a fan of modern medicine BTW. I just wish it could focus on largely preventable diseases like say leukemia, instead of blowing tons of research money on heart disease which is usually avoidable if people would just live better. Â Obamacare's biggest failing to me, assuming I would have to live under its oppression, is that it doesn't force people to take care of themselves. How about this deal: You want the free government health care cheese? You have to workout 45 minutes a day 6 days a week at the government monitored gym. Piss off if you don't like it. sounds good to me.... except when the fat lazy jerks get communicable diseases that threaten my health...then we should treat them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 If that would happen you can forget about any attempts to research and develop any new and innovative medications...what? then the academics could do it? Trust me, I've been doing R&D in the industry for more than 20 years, no way they could do it. We discard 100's if not 1000's of compounds before we advance 1, and that takes years. The hurdle is very high, you need new, unprecedented mechanisms, safety, great pharmacokinetics to advance a compound...maybe 10 years from synthesis to the clinic, then spend tens if not hundreds of millions to test it in humans...the days of "me too" medications were over years ago. Drug companies feel compelled to hit home runs now, not singles...shortening patent lives would lead to no new drugs...but yeah, everything would be cheap. Â My point exactly. Most people have no idea whatsoever what it takes to bring a new "blockbuster" to market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 just the type of thinking that propagates an unsustainable, failing system... and if isolated enantiomers are so superior (as you flippantly and generally proclaim) why not produce them at the outset? in most cases its a relatively simple stereochemical solution. What's propagating an unsustainable and failing system is people taking worse and worse care of themselves, while giving them buffet-style health plans (including Medicare and Medicaid) which lead them to waste health care dollars at their whim. The system isn't failing because Big Pharma is creating new drugs; that's just a symptom of the much larger "disease." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 What's propagating an unsustainable and failing system is people taking worse and worse care of themselves, while giving them buffet-style health plans (including Medicare and Medicaid) which lead them to waste health care dollars at their whim. The system isn't failing because Big Pharma is creating new drugs; that's just a symptom of the much larger "disease." i agree...but that doesn't jibe with your statement that "it's human nature" and thus we must abide it. people often don't know or do what's best for them. telling them and prescribing for them should be the job of experts armed with the best evidence available, not tv spokespersons, insurance and big pharma executives, and marketing gurus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 i agree...but that doesn't jibe with your statement that "it's human nature" and thus we must abide it. people often don't know or do what's best for them. telling them and prescribing for them should be the job of experts armed with the best evidence available, not tv spokespersons, insurance and big pharma executives, and marketing gurus. If patients listened to their doctors, most of them wouldn't need medications. That is my point. Many patients don't listen. Â But it's interesting that Lipitor is the king for cholesterol-lowering drugs, while Crestor, which is newer (by 6 years) ranks 10 spots lower. Once Lipitor becomes generic, will prescriptions fall off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 really...how bout lily's livalo released late 2010-the poster child for me too's. there have also been more than a few racemic mixtures separated to result in a "more effective" (and patent prolonging) enantiomer in recent years. then somehow the "old" drug that billions were made on becomes woefully inadequate... I'm specifically speaking about new projects that we work on...no more SSRI's, no mixed dopamine antagonists, etc...our given mandate is novel mechanisms,and trust me, it's tough business with unprecedented mechanisms, I can personally attest to the difficulty of doing this research. If the folks in formulation can improve the medication why not do it? That's not the me too's I was speaking about. Â Patents expire 20 years from their application filing date, which is usually 17 or so years from the date the application issues as a patent because it takes roughly 3 years from the day you apply for a patent to its grant. Â Pharma patents can get patent term extension for the time spent in FDA approval. It's a specific extension granted for pharma. and then the clinical trials take 4-5 more years....I don't know of many drugs that have been on the market for 17 years under patent protection. Maybe you can tell me a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) If that would happen you can forget about any attempts to research and develop any new and innovative medications...what? then the academics could do it? Trust me, I've been doing R&D in the industry for more than 20 years, no way they could do it. We discard 100's if not 1000's of compounds before we advance 1, and that takes years. The hurdle is very high, you need new, unprecedented mechanisms, safety, great pharmacokinetics to advance a compound...maybe 10 years from synthesis to the clinic, then spend tens if not hundreds of millions to test it in humans...the days of "me too" medications were over years ago. Drug companies feel compelled to hit home runs now, not singles...shortening patent lives would lead to no new drugs...but yeah, everything would be cheap. Â Like I said... I do see your side of the argument... I did say that... I know you work in the RX field. Â Yet... Believe me... If there is a void in the market... Somebody will fill it. If there is a will there is way. Necessity is the mother of invention. Just maybe there are too many new drugs. Â Let's see what happens. Â Come on, get with the program. The government will create labs and crank out the new drugs without any of those evil profit-making corporations involved! Then we'll have free drugs for everyone. Â That is just dumb. Maybe we actually need a slow down in what is being cranked out there... Maybe people actually need to die at some point. I know it is a hard thing to say. You guys are making the argument that if a league doesn't have a salary cap.. Only two teams will be playing. That is far from the truth. Again, when there is a will... There is way. If the market demands a product... Somebody will put it out there no matter what. Â The "crisis" in health has little to do with the drugs being invented to deal with them and a lot more to do with a lack of preventative medicine. Wow, that is jargonistic. LEt me try in plain English: Americans are a bunch of fat f***s and if they'd get off their couches and eat better, there would not be a health crisis. Â Everyone bitches about health care problems but if you go to the average ER, 90% of the people are a self-inflicted mess of overeating and drug abuse. Â :rolleyes: Edited March 6, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Ah for the days when all illness could be cured with a opium elixir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Ah for the days when all illness could be cured with a opium elixir. indeed...now all we have is that friggin' spice crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) If patients listened to their doctors, most of them wouldn't need medications. That is my point. Many patients don't listen. Â But it's interesting that Lipitor is the king for cholesterol-lowering drugs, while Crestor, which is newer (by 6 years) ranks 10 spots lower. Once Lipitor becomes generic, will prescriptions fall off? Â Not everybody can be "kings"... They need something to kill the pain of everyday existence while at least having a "good time." I don't really disagree with you... But if the docs had their way... Everybody would look like they came from a concentration camp and live an extra 10 years of an already boring and poor existence. Again, playing devils advocate... I do respect people to go out early and with a little bang in their life. Â Everything in moderation... Not too much, not too little and not a burden on others. Enjoy life and stop worrying about it... Even if that shaves some years off your life. Â Ah for the days when all illness could be cured with a opium elixir. Â Â Who says those days are gone... That opium elixir is just a double cheese Whopper. Edited March 6, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Not everybody can be "kings"... They need something to kill the pain of everyday existence while at least having a "good time." I don't really disagree with you... But if the docs had their way... Everybody would look like they came from a concentration camp and live an extra 10 years of an already boring and poor existence. Again, playing devils advocate... I do respect people to go out early and with a little bang in their life. Â Everything in moderation... Not too much, not too little and not a burden on others. Enjoy life and stop worrying about it... Even if that shaves some years off your life. Moderation is fine. That's not what's happening though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Moderation is fine. That's not what's happening though. Â Then the triple whammy: Burden to others. Â Another note... Somebody is surely making some dough off that excess... And when you see the excess by the people stop... Then you get all the whining and crying. The Vegas' of the world get upset at the Prez. So what gives? Damn if they do, damn if they don't. Quite a world we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts