Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Hi all, I wanted to copy out some text that might help us to regain our footing regarding this term " conspiracy theory " , which, these days, is a weaponised steel bat almost as effective as the steel bat called " scientific evidence " : The following is written by R. Barker Bausell, a biostatistician and research methdologist who spent 5 years (99 - 04) as the director of research at the university of maryland's Complementary Medicine Program (now the Center for Integrative Medicine), which was entirely funded by the NIH (National Institute of Health). His book is called " Snake Oil Science: The Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine " . On page 55, Bauswell defines six factors which he describes as " psychological factors which impede our ability to draw correct causal inferences " . Factor number 5 is: " A Conspiracy-Oriented View of the World. [...] paranoid in nature and often explains the lack of scientific evidence to back up one's beliefs about governmental or special interest cover-ups. [...] In CAM it is epitomised by Kevin Trudeau [whose book] reveals that the only reason his natural cures for just about every conceivable human ailment aren't in wider use is governmental and industry cover-ups. " Bauswell goes on to write about : pg 259 " In a rare fit of compassion, I didn't mention in chapter 8 the research my center performed in which three experienced TCM physicians examined the same group of rheumatoid arthritis patients and prescribed what they considered to be appropriate therapies. Even though the TCM physicians knew that all of the patients had rheumatoid arthritis, there was no consistency with respect to their diagnoses or their treatment recommendations. In other words, even if this strange, complex, and archaic diagnostic procedure had some physiological basis, it would be worthless, since these experienced practitioners came up with completely different conclusions when examining the same patients. " As laughable as his poverty of understanding might be, the fact is that there are conspiracies of all sorts, and that he is part of a special interest group who work towards certain goals which are not evidence-based. Other words for conspiracy in this context are " misunderstanding " , " closed-mindedness " , " egotism " . Information is not correct just because a group of people agree about it, and invoking Conspiracy Theory as an argument without data to back it up is a cop-out. Thanks, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro <subincor Chinese Medicine Sat, 17 April, 2010 13:01:24 What is " average life expectancy " ? Hi Jason, top o' the day to you; --- Just curious, are you saying that you think the avg. life-span was the same 2000 years ago as it is today. --- The main problem is this construct " average lifespan " . Actually we are discussing *average life expectancy*. Average life expectancy is a statistical term which does not refer to the distribution of age in a population over time, but is, rather, a concatenation of all ages (1+2+3+4+5.. .=x) then divided by the population number, leading to a very simple number, the " average " . The average life expectancy is a complex term WHICH IS NOT reflected by the statement, " we live longer than people long ago " . ( " Average " actually refers to three differing concepts, the mean, the median, and the mode - we are dealing with the mean.) The complex statistical term " average life expectancy " is better reflected by statements such as the following: - fewer infants die in affluent or protected societies, or protected sub-units of societies. - in the modern world a larger proportion of the total population have affluence than at other times in the last 5-10 thousand years. - relatively small community units, throughout history, have met or exceeded our current (north american) lifespan maximums. - poverty, war, famine, tainted water and harsh environments place extreme stresses on young humans, causing a high infant mortality, and therefore reducing total average life expectancy for the population in question. - poverty, war, famine, tainted water, and harsh environments place the same tolls on a population in 2010AD as they did in 200AD as they did in 1000BC. If I were to pose an interesting and reasonable research question (which, to my knowledge, has not been investigated) I would ask: " Which has had the greater impact on infant mortality in non-tropical environments? Vaccination or Insulation? " I wonder which has been responsible for large parts of the decrease in infant / youth mortality - engineering or medicine. Other factors are obvious. Food and water, for instance. It is interesting to note, however, that affluence can be read in at least two important ways: to be just " wealthy " enough to have protection and food such as would be found in a remote village in a fecund valley in a temperate climate, or being rich; having so much food and protection that the corruption of excess wealth sets in - what we would recognise as our modern " diseases of affluence " - diabetes, heart disease etc. In my little dissertation here I am referring to the first definition: having a good amount of good quality food and water, a calm life and lifestyle, a good community, and little exposure to harsh environments. --- I think that it is pretty much standard academic thought (for better or worse) that people died much younger 2000 years ago. --- I hope it is clearer why this is a simplistic statement that is not reflective of the real complexity of the situation. --- This “fact†has nothing to do with being overall superior and I think John’s (?) point is a valid idea. --- It's good that you placed fact in quotation marks, and if I may restate John's point it was the following: " If cancer incidence was lower in ancient China, was it because people just didn't live long enough to develop it? " The corollary to his statement is the following: " Modern people live much longer than ancient peoples and that's why we see so much disease today (coz we r so good we akshally get old). " Both premises are false. Again, an easy way to prove my point is to read the China study and examine the health effects of the traditional diet *in traditional settings* and realise how much lower rates of disease are despite comparable lifespans. Thanks everyone, Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.middleme dicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 In fact there is room for subjectivity in diagnosis. Did they examine all of these patients at exactly the same time? Were they a week apart? A month apart? He is also presupposing that Western diagnoses have some sort of universal metaphysical status. As if it is " more real " than TCM. Like if a Western MD says it's a set of individual trees, then it can't be considered a forest. - " Hugo Ramiro " <subincor <Chinese Medicine > Saturday, April 17, 2010 10:45 AM Conspiracy Theories and TCM Hi all, I wanted to copy out some text that might help us to regain our footing regarding this term " conspiracy theory " , which, these days, is a weaponised steel bat almost as effective as the steel bat called " scientific evidence " : The following is written by R. Barker Bausell, a biostatistician and research methdologist who spent 5 years (99 - 04) as the director of research at the university of maryland's Complementary Medicine Program (now the Center for Integrative Medicine), which was entirely funded by the NIH (National Institute of Health). His book is called " Snake Oil Science: The Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine " . On page 55, Bauswell defines six factors which he describes as " psychological factors which impede our ability to draw correct causal inferences " . Factor number 5 is: " A Conspiracy-Oriented View of the World. [...] paranoid in nature and often explains the lack of scientific evidence to back up one's beliefs about governmental or special interest cover-ups. [...] In CAM it is epitomised by Kevin Trudeau [whose book] reveals that the only reason his natural cures for just about every conceivable human ailment aren't in wider use is governmental and industry cover-ups. " Bauswell goes on to write about : pg 259 " In a rare fit of compassion, I didn't mention in chapter 8 the research my center performed in which three experienced TCM physicians examined the same group of rheumatoid arthritis patients and prescribed what they considered to be appropriate therapies. Even though the TCM physicians knew that all of the patients had rheumatoid arthritis, there was no consistency with respect to their diagnoses or their treatment recommendations. In other words, even if this strange, complex, and archaic diagnostic procedure had some physiological basis, it would be worthless, since these experienced practitioners came up with completely different conclusions when examining the same patients. " As laughable as his poverty of understanding might be, the fact is that there are conspiracies of all sorts, and that he is part of a special interest group who work towards certain goals which are not evidence-based. Other words for conspiracy in this context are " misunderstanding " , " closed-mindedness " , " egotism " . Information is not correct just because a group of people agree about it, and invoking Conspiracy Theory as an argument without data to back it up is a cop-out. Thanks, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro <subincor Chinese Medicine Sat, 17 April, 2010 13:01:24 What is " average life expectancy " ? Hi Jason, top o' the day to you; --- Just curious, are you saying that you think the avg. life-span was the same 2000 years ago as it is today. --- The main problem is this construct " average lifespan " . Actually we are discussing *average life expectancy*. Average life expectancy is a statistical term which does not refer to the distribution of age in a population over time, but is, rather, a concatenation of all ages (1+2+3+4+5.. .=x) then divided by the population number, leading to a very simple number, the " average " . The average life expectancy is a complex term WHICH IS NOT reflected by the statement, " we live longer than people long ago " . ( " Average " actually refers to three differing concepts, the mean, the median, and the mode - we are dealing with the mean.) The complex statistical term " average life expectancy " is better reflected by statements such as the following: - fewer infants die in affluent or protected societies, or protected sub-units of societies. - in the modern world a larger proportion of the total population have affluence than at other times in the last 5-10 thousand years. - relatively small community units, throughout history, have met or exceeded our current (north american) lifespan maximums. - poverty, war, famine, tainted water and harsh environments place extreme stresses on young humans, causing a high infant mortality, and therefore reducing total average life expectancy for the population in question. - poverty, war, famine, tainted water, and harsh environments place the same tolls on a population in 2010AD as they did in 200AD as they did in 1000BC. If I were to pose an interesting and reasonable research question (which, to my knowledge, has not been investigated) I would ask: " Which has had the greater impact on infant mortality in non-tropical environments? Vaccination or Insulation? " I wonder which has been responsible for large parts of the decrease in infant / youth mortality - engineering or medicine. Other factors are obvious. Food and water, for instance. It is interesting to note, however, that affluence can be read in at least two important ways: to be just " wealthy " enough to have protection and food such as would be found in a remote village in a fecund valley in a temperate climate, or being rich; having so much food and protection that the corruption of excess wealth sets in - what we would recognise as our modern " diseases of affluence " - diabetes, heart disease etc. In my little dissertation here I am referring to the first definition: having a good amount of good quality food and water, a calm life and lifestyle, a good community, and little exposure to harsh environments. --- I think that it is pretty much standard academic thought (for better or worse) that people died much younger 2000 years ago. --- I hope it is clearer why this is a simplistic statement that is not reflective of the real complexity of the situation. --- This “fact†has nothing to do with being overall superior and I think John’s (?) point is a valid idea. --- It's good that you placed fact in quotation marks, and if I may restate John's point it was the following: " If cancer incidence was lower in ancient China, was it because people just didn't live long enough to develop it? " The corollary to his statement is the following: " Modern people live much longer than ancient peoples and that's why we see so much disease today (coz we r so good we akshally get old). " Both premises are false. Again, an easy way to prove my point is to read the China study and examine the health effects of the traditional diet *in traditional settings* and realise how much lower rates of disease are despite comparable lifespans. Thanks everyone, Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.middleme dicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Wow, Hugo. I just read your post about Univer of MD researcher and NIH. Maryland's Integrative Medicine group is supposed to promote compelmentary medicine - with acupuncturists on staff. Also, I assumed the NIH Complementary group were the good guys for the most part. Some of them have been guest lecturers at my acupuncture school when I was there 8 years ago. Don't know about now. Bob Duggan, one of the founders of TAI in Columbia MD (a 30-yr old) school, has always wanted to make " friendzzy's " with the Western community - I believe to give them a better understanding of what we do, and also to stay alive all these years. Maryland has a strong medical establishment. A D.O. and a Biological Dentist lost their licenses for overtly stepping on their toes (this is what I hear.) Anne Anne C. Crowley, L.Ac., Dipl.Ac. www.LaPlataAcupuncture.com - " Mercurius Trismegistus " <magisterium_magnum " Traditional " <Chinese Medicine > Saturday, April 17, 2010 5:25:06 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Re:  Conspiracy Theories and TCM  In fact there is room for subjectivity in diagnosis. Did they examine all of these patients at exactly the same time? Were they a week apart? A month apart? He is also presupposing that Western diagnoses have some sort of universal metaphysical status. As if it is " more real " than TCM. Like if a Western MD says it's a set of individual trees, then it can't be considered a forest. - " Hugo Ramiro " < subincor > < Chinese Medicine > Saturday, April 17, 2010 10:45 AM Conspiracy Theories and TCM Hi all, I wanted to copy out some text that might help us to regain our footing regarding this term " conspiracy theory " , which, these days, is a weaponised steel bat almost as effective as the steel bat called " scientific evidence " : The following is written by R. Barker Bausell, a biostatistician and research methdologist who spent 5 years (99 - 04) as the director of research at the university of maryland's Complementary Medicine Program (now the Center for Integrative Medicine), which was entirely funded by the NIH (National Institute of Health). His book is called " Snake Oil Science: The Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine " . On page 55, Bauswell defines six factors which he describes as " psychological factors which impede our ability to draw correct causal inferences " . Factor number 5 is: " A Conspiracy-Oriented View of the World. [...] paranoid in nature and often explains the lack of scientific evidence to back up one's beliefs about governmental or special interest cover-ups. [...] In CAM it is epitomised by Kevin Trudeau [whose book] reveals that the only reason his natural cures for just about every conceivable human ailment aren't in wider use is governmental and industry cover-ups. " Bauswell goes on to write about : pg 259 " In a rare fit of compassion, I didn't mention in chapter 8 the research my center performed in which three experienced TCM physicians examined the same group of rheumatoid arthritis patients and prescribed what they considered to be appropriate therapies. Even though the TCM physicians knew that all of the patients had rheumatoid arthritis, there was no consistency with respect to their diagnoses or their treatment recommendations. In other words, even if this strange, complex, and archaic diagnostic procedure had some physiological basis, it would be worthless, since these experienced practitioners came up with completely different conclusions when examining the same patients. " As laughable as his poverty of understanding might be, the fact is that there are conspiracies of all sorts, and that he is part of a special interest group who work towards certain goals which are not evidence-based. Other words for conspiracy in this context are " misunderstanding " , " closed-mindedness " , " egotism " . Information is not correct just because a group of people agree about it, and invoking Conspiracy Theory as an argument without data to back it up is a cop-out. Thanks, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro < subincor > Chinese Medicine Sat, 17 April, 2010 13:01:24 What is " average life expectancy " ? Hi Jason, top o' the day to you; --- Just curious, are you saying that you think the avg. life-span was the same 2000 years ago as it is today. --- The main problem is this construct " average lifespan " . Actually we are discussing *average life expectancy*. Average life expectancy is a statistical term which does not refer to the distribution of age in a population over time, but is, rather, a concatenation of all ages (1+2+3+4+5.. .=x) then divided by the population number, leading to a very simple number, the " average " . The average life expectancy is a complex term WHICH IS NOT reflected by the statement, " we live longer than people long ago " . ( " Average " actually refers to three differing concepts, the mean, the median, and the mode - we are dealing with the mean.) The complex statistical term " average life expectancy " is better reflected by statements such as the following: - fewer infants die in affluent or protected societies, or protected sub-units of societies. - in the modern world a larger proportion of the total population have affluence than at other times in the last 5-10 thousand years. - relatively small community units, throughout history, have met or exceeded our current (north american) lifespan maximums. - poverty, war, famine, tainted water and harsh environments place extreme stresses on young humans, causing a high infant mortality, and therefore reducing total average life expectancy for the population in question. - poverty, war, famine, tainted water, and harsh environments place the same tolls on a population in 2010AD as they did in 200AD as they did in 1000BC. If I were to pose an interesting and reasonable research question (which, to my knowledge, has not been investigated) I would ask: " Which has had the greater impact on infant mortality in non-tropical environments? Vaccination or Insulation? " I wonder which has been responsible for large parts of the decrease in infant / youth mortality - engineering or medicine. Other factors are obvious. Food and water, for instance. It is interesting to note, however, that affluence can be read in at least two important ways: to be just " wealthy " enough to have protection and food such as would be found in a remote village in a fecund valley in a temperate climate, or being rich; having so much food and protection that the corruption of excess wealth sets in - what we would recognise as our modern " diseases of affluence " - diabetes, heart disease etc. In my little dissertation here I am referring to the first definition: having a good amount of good quality food and water, a calm life and lifestyle, a good community, and little exposure to harsh environments. --- I think that it is pretty much standard academic thought (for better or worse) that people died much younger 2000 years ago. --- I hope it is clearer why this is a simplistic statement that is not reflective of the real complexity of the situation. --- This “fact†has nothing to do with being overall superior and I think John’s (?) point is a valid idea. --- It's good that you placed fact in quotation marks, and if I may restate John's point it was the following: " If cancer incidence was lower in ancient China, was it because people just didn't live long enough to develop it? " The corollary to his statement is the following: " Modern people live much longer than ancient peoples and that's why we see so much disease today (coz we r so good we akshally get old). " Both premises are false. Again, an easy way to prove my point is to read the China study and examine the health effects of the traditional diet *in traditional settings* and realise how much lower rates of disease are despite comparable lifespans. Thanks everyone, Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.middleme dicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Hi Anne; I think there's always a mix. And maybe Bausell only lasted 5 years there because there was too much sympathy for CAM at the institution. Who knows, maybe that's why he wrote the book. I totally agree that good relationships must be made with other medical traditions. I also find that without a very solid and rooted grounding in our own tradition, we can become watered-down after extended contact with other traditions - without the other tradition necessarily becoming watered down. At least this has been my experience. So long as the China Study is in the air, I'll let those who don't have the book know that Campbell devoted the last 100 pages of his book to conspiracy theories, or at least, *his* conspiracy theories, with sections titled " Why haven't you heard this before? " and " science - the dark side " , and " government: is it for the people? " . Thanks, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ Anne Crowley <anne.crowley Traditional <Chinese Medicine > Sun, 18 April, 2010 9:54:00 Re: Conspiracy Theories and TCM Wow, Hugo. I just read your post about Univer of MD researcher and NIH. Maryland's Integrative Medicine group is supposed to promote compelmentary medicine - with acupuncturists on staff. Also, I assumed the NIH Complementary group were the good guys for the most part. Some of them have been guest lecturers at my acupuncture school when I was there 8 years ago. Don't know about now. Bob Duggan, one of the founders of TAI in Columbia MD (a 30-yr old) school, has always wanted to make " friendzzy's " with the Western community - I believe to give them a better understanding of what we do, and also to stay alive all these years. Maryland has a strong medical establishment. A D.O. and a Biological Dentist lost their licenses for overtly stepping on their toes (this is what I hear.) Anne Anne C. Crowley, L.Ac., Dipl.Ac. www.LaPlataAcupunct ure.com - " Mercurius Trismegistus " <magisterium_ magnum (AT) comcast (DOT) net> " Traditional " <Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine @. com> Saturday, April 17, 2010 5:25:06 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Re: Conspiracy Theories and TCM In fact there is room for subjectivity in diagnosis. Did they examine all of these patients at exactly the same time? Were they a week apart? A month apart? He is also presupposing that Western diagnoses have some sort of universal metaphysical status. As if it is " more real " than TCM. Like if a Western MD says it's a set of individual trees, then it can't be considered a forest. - " Hugo Ramiro " < subincor > < Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine > Saturday, April 17, 2010 10:45 AM Conspiracy Theories and TCM Hi all, I wanted to copy out some text that might help us to regain our footing regarding this term " conspiracy theory " , which, these days, is a weaponised steel bat almost as effective as the steel bat called " scientific evidence " : The following is written by R. Barker Bausell, a biostatistician and research methdologist who spent 5 years (99 - 04) as the director of research at the university of maryland's Complementary Medicine Program (now the Center for Integrative Medicine), which was entirely funded by the NIH (National Institute of Health). His book is called " Snake Oil Science: The Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine " . On page 55, Bauswell defines six factors which he describes as " psychological factors which impede our ability to draw correct causal inferences " . Factor number 5 is: " A Conspiracy-Oriented View of the World. [...] paranoid in nature and often explains the lack of scientific evidence to back up one's beliefs about governmental or special interest cover-ups. [...] In CAM it is epitomised by Kevin Trudeau [whose book] reveals that the only reason his natural cures for just about every conceivable human ailment aren't in wider use is governmental and industry cover-ups. " Bauswell goes on to write about : pg 259 " In a rare fit of compassion, I didn't mention in chapter 8 the research my center performed in which three experienced TCM physicians examined the same group of rheumatoid arthritis patients and prescribed what they considered to be appropriate therapies. Even though the TCM physicians knew that all of the patients had rheumatoid arthritis, there was no consistency with respect to their diagnoses or their treatment recommendations. In other words, even if this strange, complex, and archaic diagnostic procedure had some physiological basis, it would be worthless, since these experienced practitioners came up with completely different conclusions when examining the same patients. " As laughable as his poverty of understanding might be, the fact is that there are conspiracies of all sorts, and that he is part of a special interest group who work towards certain goals which are not evidence-based. Other words for conspiracy in this context are " misunderstanding " , " closed-mindedness " , " egotism " . Information is not correct just because a group of people agree about it, and invoking Conspiracy Theory as an argument without data to back it up is a cop-out. Thanks, Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.middleme dicine.org ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro < subincor > Sat, 17 April, 2010 13:01:24 What is " average life expectancy " ? Hi Jason, top o' the day to you; --- Just curious, are you saying that you think the avg. life-span was the same 2000 years ago as it is today. --- The main problem is this construct " average lifespan " . Actually we are discussing *average life expectancy*. Average life expectancy is a statistical term which does not refer to the distribution of age in a population over time, but is, rather, a concatenation of all ages (1+2+3+4+5.. .=x) then divided by the population number, leading to a very simple number, the " average " . The average life expectancy is a complex term WHICH IS NOT reflected by the statement, " we live longer than people long ago " . ( " Average " actually refers to three differing concepts, the mean, the median, and the mode - we are dealing with the mean.) The complex statistical term " average life expectancy " is better reflected by statements such as the following: - fewer infants die in affluent or protected societies, or protected sub-units of societies. - in the modern world a larger proportion of the total population have affluence than at other times in the last 5-10 thousand years. - relatively small community units, throughout history, have met or exceeded our current (north american) lifespan maximums. - poverty, war, famine, tainted water and harsh environments place extreme stresses on young humans, causing a high infant mortality, and therefore reducing total average life expectancy for the population in question. - poverty, war, famine, tainted water, and harsh environments place the same tolls on a population in 2010AD as they did in 200AD as they did in 1000BC. If I were to pose an interesting and reasonable research question (which, to my knowledge, has not been investigated) I would ask: " Which has had the greater impact on infant mortality in non-tropical environments? Vaccination or Insulation? " I wonder which has been responsible for large parts of the decrease in infant / youth mortality - engineering or medicine. Other factors are obvious. Food and water, for instance. It is interesting to note, however, that affluence can be read in at least two important ways: to be just " wealthy " enough to have protection and food such as would be found in a remote village in a fecund valley in a temperate climate, or being rich; having so much food and protection that the corruption of excess wealth sets in - what we would recognise as our modern " diseases of affluence " - diabetes, heart disease etc. In my little dissertation here I am referring to the first definition: having a good amount of good quality food and water, a calm life and lifestyle, a good community, and little exposure to harsh environments. --- I think that it is pretty much standard academic thought (for better or worse) that people died much younger 2000 years ago. --- I hope it is clearer why this is a simplistic statement that is not reflective of the real complexity of the situation. --- This “fact†has nothing to do with being overall superior and I think John’s (?) point is a valid idea. --- It's good that you placed fact in quotation marks, and if I may restate John's point it was the following: " If cancer incidence was lower in ancient China, was it because people just didn't live long enough to develop it? " The corollary to his statement is the following: " Modern people live much longer than ancient peoples and that's why we see so much disease today (coz we r so good we akshally get old). " Both premises are false. Again, an easy way to prove my point is to read the China study and examine the health effects of the traditional diet *in traditional settings* and realise how much lower rates of disease are despite comparable lifespans. Thanks everyone, Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.middleme dicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.