Friday, January 10, 2014

The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 004b (Part 2 of 5) - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the second part of the fourth episode of The Naturocrit Podcast, "The NYANP: Their 2014 Bill Fabrication and Content History". I cover the 'historical language preponderance' of WANP and AANP, and then I get into the language of the current 2014 NYANP-AANP bill draft:

001. the Episode 004b (Part 2 of 5) script and annotations:

Standard Intro.:

Welcome to, as that robot voice says, The Naturocrit Podcast, and thank you for boldly listening. 

What ARE we even talking about?

Well, this podcast series is my take on naturopathic medicine, an area I've been studying for about twenty years, including my time in so-called 'scientific nonsectarian naturopathic medical school'.

My approach is a pairing of scientific skepticism and a deep knowledge of naturopathy's intimate details.

In previous episodes of this series, I established that naturopathy is, essentially, a kind of knowledge blending, misrepresentation, and irrationality.

I have termed naturopathy both 'an epistemic conflation falsely posing itself as an epistemic delineation' and 'the naturopathillogical':

the science-exterior is mixed with what is scientific, then that whole muddle is absurdly claimed to be science as an entire category, while particular sectarian science-ejected oath-obligations and -requirements are coded or camouflaged, therein effectively disguising naturopathy's system of beliefs in public view.

Naturopathy's ultimate achievement is a profound erosion of scientific integrity and freedom of belief packaged in the marketing veneer "natural" and improperly embedded in the academic category "science".

Episode Synopsis:

In this Part Two of this five-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 004, I will I continue my 'historical language preponderance' examples.

In Part One, I cited from the archived language of ND Koda.

I will now look at the archived language of WANP and the AANP.

b.) My second 'historical language preponderance' example is WANP:

The Washington [State] Association of Naturopathic Physicians is archived from 1999 until the present as

b.i.) What's claimed, science broadly:

The 2004 archived page "Definitions and Naturopathic Principles" [vsc 2014-01-08] states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances."

I think that's a BROAD, categorical science claim.

b.ii.) What's omitted, vitalism nonscience:

Now, that same page states:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct system [...] naturopathic physicians base their medical practice on the following principles: [#1] the healing power of nature is the inherent self-organizing and healing process of living systems. Naturopathic medicine recognizes this healing process to be ordered and intelligent. It is the naturopathic physician's role to support, facilitate and augment this process [...#2] treat the whole person: health or disease comes from a complex interaction of mental, emotional, spiritual, physical, dietary, genetic, environmental, lifestyle, and other factors. Naturopathic physicians treat the whole person, taking these factors into account."

The vitalism coding, the callousness concerning consent!

And again, that claim by WANP, of being distinct and distinguishing, that teleology and supernaturalism.

There is the profession claim on their archived 1999 'home page' [vsc 2014-01-08], a page that, surprise-surprise, defines naturopathy's principles yet OMITS COMPLETELY the HPN-VMN principle of vitalism and merely states science-science-science:

"as a distinct American health care profession [...] your naturopathic physician works with you to encourage your body's built-in healing abilities [...and we're told] the modern resurgence of naturopathic medicine has been built upon scientific knowledge of the mechanisms of natural healing and therapeutics. Ongoing research in immunology, diagnosis, clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, psychology and other clinical sciences contribute to the development of naturopathic medical science."

And there is a 'help-wanted' link [vsc 2014-01-08] to a WANP page I recently pushed into that, very much like what ND Koda had, references NDs' usual in-house dispensary as:

"a comprehensive and diverse natural dispensary."

So, basically, we have the same stuff going on as ND Koda.

c.) My third 'historical language preponderance' example is the AANP:

ND Koda's 2005 'homepage' [vsc 2014-01-08] stated:

"our doctor, Steven Koda, N.D., is a licensed naturopathic physician and a member of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians" and WANP is a state chapter of AANP.

So, off we go to AANP, the political mother-ship of US AANMC naturopathy.

c.i.) What's claimed, science broadly:

In the 2012 archive page "House of Delegates Position Paper: Definition of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2014-01-08] we're told:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles upon which its practice is based. These principles are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances [...and naturopathy includes such activities as] homeopathy and acupuncture."

[for the science-ejected status of acupuncture, see this recent reporting, but I'll have to handle naturopathy's acupuncture in a separate episode in the future].

So, from naturopathy's tippity-top on down, as you can see, there's that broad science categorization.

That page also notes:"amended by AANP PPRC 2011"and I'll assume PPRC means something like 'position paper review committee.'

Yes, naturopathy EN MASSE is YET under the DELUSION or maintains the FALSEHOOD, as of 2011, that its principles and methods, like vitalism and supernaturalism and teleology, homeopathy and acupuncture [and such], survive scientific scrutiny.

c.ii.) What's omitted, vitalism nonscience:

We're also told in that AANP page:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care profession [...its] principles: [#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process in the person which is ordered and intelligent [] this inherent self-healing process [...] therapeutic methods and substances are used to work in harmony with the person's inherent self -healing process, the vis medicatrix naturae [...#5] treat the whole person: since total health also includes spiritual health, naturopathic physicians encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development."

So, just like ND Koda and WANP, AANP has a categorical or broad science claim, a distinct claim, a profession claim, coded vitalism, teleology, overt supernaturalism, and an overall callousness regarding [informed] consent as embodied by that coding and epistemic mislabeling.

And, regarding in-house dispensaries, the 2011 archived AANP page "Follow Your Money!" [vsc 2014-01-08] mentions:

"the typical naturopathic practice [...includes a] medicinary [...or] dispensary".

[It also asks: "how much profit do you really make on labs, medicinary( dispensary ) etc. [...and advises] charge more."  Really; here's the dispensary page at NCNM; vsc 2014-01-08].

So, to summarize this section I've called "Language: An Historical Preponderance", what does naturopathy typically do when explaining itself?

In other words, what is its 'historical language pattern'?

As we can see from ND Koda, WANP, and the AANP itself, you have, and this list is by no means exhaustive but there's only so much I can talk about without hugely diluting the focus of this episode:

a broad or categorical science claim, coded or veiled or camouflaged science-exterior vitalism, overt supernaturalism which is science-exterior, a profession claim, a distinct and distinguishing claim, teleology, and an in-house dispensary.

As I'd said, I'll be tabulating these facets and that table will be included with the transcripts at the Naturocrit Blog.

Are you wondering if ND Koda's 2014 bill language will follow suit?

Regarding the 'in-house dispensary' presence or allowance within naturopathy, I mention this because the AANP claims naturopathy is "cost-effective" [vsc 2014-01-08], while it has generally been noted that when doctors and not pharmacists dispense, the prices are quite needlessly premium:

"[as the NYT reported] at a time of soaring health care bills, experts say that doctors, middlemen and drug distributors are adding hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the costs borne by taxpayers, insurance companies and employers through the practice of physician dispensing".

In other words, one shouldn't discount the fact that naturopathy, too, is quite a money-maker or portal of commerce, and its claims of cost-effectiveness are as suspect as its claims of its ideas and activities broadly surviving scientific scrutiny.

I.iv.) ND Koda's 'quite selected' language defining naturopathy and an apparent 'language strategy':

ND Koda's training at Bastyr, which is quite a science-labeled and coded place in itself, his membership with WANP and AANP, and the pages from his own practice, leads me to believe that he knows how to walk that walk of selectively presenting language about naturopathy to the public by way of that common, quite opaque and eventually epistemically false typical naturopathic mannerism, as I just demonstrated.

Here now are a few outstanding excerpts from the webinar discussing that 2014 bill-in-draft that I have transcribed.

My script for this Episode 004 will of course be up at the Naturocrit Blog and I'll have a rough timecode next to each quote to make it more easily findable for anyone later.

I'd also greatly appreciate word of any errors a listener may find.

a.) What's claimed, profession:

First, there is the QUITE ABUNDANT claim in the webinar that naturopathy is a "profession".

One of the webinar's first slides reads 'Licensing the Profession of Naturopathy in New York State'.

ND Brinkman says such things as:

"the kind of bill we're concerned about is specifically a healthcare profession in the State of NY [00.02.00...] Steve tell us about the regulatory framework in NY for licensing professions [00.02.07...] so what are the prohibitions to the practice of naturopathy? Do other professions have a section of prohibitions? [01.07.13]."

ND Koda says such things as:

"today we're going to talk about the bill for 2014 and we're going to focus mostly on the practice of the profession and the prohibitions to the practice of the profession of naturopathy [00.01.45...] to be able to honor the mission of the naturopathic profession [00.16.28...] I haven't seen a specific section in the chapters for the other professions [01.07.26...] other professions would have similar sections in their bill [00.09.23...] the meaning of the practice of the profession of naturopathy [00.47.06...] the use of billing codes of another licensed profession in the practice of the profession of naturopathy shall not be considered a claim to practice as any other type of health care professional [01.18.49...] there are five paragraphs on the practice of the profession of naturopathy [00.38.41...] the things we can't do [...that are] professional misconduct [...] if they are performed [00.13.34...] if you do make one of these claims it's professional misconduct. We need to become aware of where the line is or at least know what's on the safe side of the line [01.19.10.]".

So, obviously, there's quite an abundant usage of the label "profession."

A GLARING question: is it professional misconduct to practice and engage in commerce by way of what isn't scientifically supported medically, yet maintain a false label upon such of "scientific"?

Also: is it EDUCATIONAL misconduct to pass and then oversee a law that ALLOWS such, since this law is under the ".gov" education department of NYS?

And: is it EDUCATIONAL misconduct to label 'the patently science-exterior naturopathic' "health science" as my naturopathy school alma mater still does to this day?

I find it ironic that a demarcation or discernment, as in ND Koda's "the line", is mentioned AS IF naturopathy distinguishes or makes distinctions between such things as science and the science-exterior, and acceptable and unacceptable conduct as a supposed professional!

Behavior or activity, in terms of professionalism, is described in the Wikipedia article "Professional Ethics" and it states:

"some professional organizations define their ethical approach in terms of a number of discrete components. Typically these include: honesty, integrity, transparency, accountability, confidentiality, objectivity, respectfulness, obedience to the law, [and] loyalty."

I will return to these ideas at the end of this episode, in terms of 'what this law tells us about naturopathy' particularly as regards transparency, objectivity, honesty and integrity.

b.) What's claimed, science broadly:

ND Brinkman reads from the bill:

"'naturopathic doctors combine a functional, scientific and humanistic approach to patient care based on their training [00.08.25]."

Now, I understand the idea of functional and scientific.

The science of physiology is the study of functions or processes in the human body, and it actually sounds silly to say science WITH physiology when claiming to practice as a physician.

But, what really jumps out at me is the label of "humanistic".

"humanism is a movement of philosophy and ethics that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism)."

Fideism”, and you'll have to excuse my pronunciation if I am murdering the word, is defined as:

“an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths [...] the word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means 'faith-ism.'”


If ever I can say "naturopathy is a COMPLETE reversal of values" then I'll say it right now...COMPLETE!

Humanism's opposite, in my view, is sectarianism.

Loosely, the sectarian can be defined, by this great quote from the Popular Science Monthly from November 1889:

"science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what can not be proved, for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed."

Now, if ANY area is the opposite of humanistic it is naturopathy!

A vital force spirit figmentation and supernatural particulars claimed as ABSOLUTELY TRUE in a list of other required behaviors and methods?


And yet claimed to be science-vetted, continually.

If that's not a creed and dogmatic, and an example of some really screwed-up thinking...

And the epitome of what's sectarian...

Well, obviously, sectarian pseudoscience is NOT humanistic science.

We're also warned in that Wikipedia article:

"the term humanism can be ambiguously diverse, and there has been a persistent confusion between several related uses of the term because different intellectual movements have identified with it over time."

Apparently, because I've never seen this word before in a naturopathy definition in twenty years of studying naturopathy [FABRICATION ALERT!!!], this is a word naturopathy is NOW identifying with by way of ND Koda and this new 2014 draft.

[In fact, a web search 2014-01-08 by way of >naturopathic humanism< has NO first-page results that are either a naturopathy school, organization, or practitioner, and ranges in association from the supernatural-spiritual to the atheistic:

So, the question I'd have for ND Koda is that most important of philosophical questions:

"what do you mean?"

And I'm quick to think of all these values reversals I've observed in naturopathy for a couple decades:

"oh, you mean that humanism that is sectarianism! Just like you mean: the distinct that is blended, the transparent that is opaque, the natural that includes the supernatural, the science that includes the science-exterior, and the professionalism that cannot be trusted."

As nobody should trust practitioners who claim homeopathy and such behaviors and particular articles of supernaturalism are scientific and humanistic!

c.) What's claimed, distinct:

There is quite a lot of talk about being distinct through DEFINING and DISTINGUISHING, really.

ND Brinkman states:

"as you know, we've decided to stand up for who we are, with stronger language in our bill [00.00.27...with the purpose to] really define us in the health care professions [00.00.40...] so how is the profession of naturopathy being defined? And tell us also how that definition is going to help us accomplish the strategic choices [00.16.49...] I think this is where we're really distinguishing ourselves and establishing why we are important [00.08.49...] I feel like it really distinguishes us [00.20.32]."

ND Koda states:

"it will become pretty clear what I'm talking about as we get into the definition of practice of the profession [00.16.36...] there are some key words here that are going to be very important [00.33.42...] we are adding a lot of definitions here [00.10.43...] we have gone through the extra step of putting definitions for some of these key words in here [00.11.50...] when we use a word that's not defined, somebody else gets to define it: the Board and the Regulators get to define it [00.11.35...] we would prefer to make sure that word is used in the way that we normally think of using that word [00.11.44...] we needed to be more specific, more detailed [00.15.32...merely saying] naturopathy is a complete system of health care [00.17.39...] that's not very helpful [...] it doesn't tell [...] the public what that means [00.17.55...] what we've done though is that we've spelled it out [00.52.14...] clarifying ambiguities [00.15.55...] we need to be very clear [00.11.27]."

And so on, and ironic so on.

d.) What's claimed, overt supernaturalism:

ND Koda states:

"the activities of the naturopathic doctor [include...] investigating the whole person [...] we investigate the whole person and [...] we treat the whole person so we don't limit it to physical conditions [00.31.38...] whole person is defined [...] whole person we know means a person's physical and mental constitution, along with their emotional affectations and spiritual proclivities [00.34.31...] we know we all practice considering physical, mental, emotional and spiritual. So this is the wording that gives us permission to do that [00.34.43]."

[Here's such supernaturalism at NYANP's mother organization, the AANP at the page "Celebrating Naturopathic Medicine Week"; vsc 2014-01-08.  Also, 'emotional affectations' is a weird expression and likely an erroneous expression if we are talking about 'a person's characteristics in general'.  Affectation is defined as: "a show, pretense, or display [...] behavior that is assumed rather than natural; artificiality [...] particular habit, as of speech or dress, adopted to give a false impression."  Oh, such MUCH MORE irony.  Because naturopathy's science-status POSING affectation!  'Affects' is likely what was meant, and yet 'emotional affects' is rather redundant!].

That doesn't sound very humanistic or scientific to me.

It sounds like a particular kind of LEGAL permission:

to call "scientific" and "humanistic" ANYTHING NEW YORK NDs WANT to, including categories as patently science-exterior as particular sectarian supernaturalisms.

Like an intelligent vital force figmentation intelligently running physiology!

Written into LAW will be what is FALSE, epistemically speaking.

Yet, how CAN they be held accountable for ANYTHING when they're defense could be, based upon this false labeling:

"you have to see it from our PECULIAR perspective, based on OUR often secret, self-serving reversed meanings which we have been GIVEN permission to legally MASK by New York State."

ND Koda at one point states, regarding the chosen bill language, that the chosen words are:

"words that would have to be enforceable in a court is where the thinking went as to how to choose these words [00.25.29...] I've been continually going through this and trying to tweak this to come up with the best wording in protecting the profession [00.26.31]".

Oh please, ENFORCE!!!

Enforce the claim [THE WORDS!] that vitalism survives scientific scrutiny, and that the patently science-exterior survives scientific scrutiny.

Enforce it, please!

I obviously don't get it:


How can you enforce an area which stands every value on its head:

science and nonscience, natural and supernatural, distinct and blended, defining and veiling?

And I hazard to guess, even harm and benefit?

Because a primary naturopathic principle is first do no harm, yet, as I've said a couple times already, there's science and freedom of belief, and consumer and human rights, all bruised and battered in the corner whimpering.


How can you be a profession if you cannot be trusted to tell the TRUTH and therein you do not place public and patient first?

To me, this bill representation of naturopathy sounds more like a used car dealer putting together a self-serving contract as in 'buyer beware' or caveat emptor, as opposed to a profession placing the client first as in 'let the buyer have trust' through transparency, or credat emptor as in fiduciary duty.

e.) What's claimed, dispensing and bill-coding:

Let us not forget naturopathy is a business, as in commerce or trade, educationally and clinically.

ND Koda states:

"we are in a sense protecting ourselves and making sure that the infrastructure is going to develop for being paid for investigating the whole person [00.33.11 {yes they will be paid for SCIENTIFICALLY investigating the SUPERNATURAL!}...] there may be billing codes that would be defined for our profession [00.33.20...] over time there will be infrastructure that will develop out of the law for the practice of naturopaths in NY [ get] reimburse[d...] we don't want [....] the insurance industry [...] thinking about the medical model where you have a diagnosis and a treatment and we're gonna pay you this much for it, because we do it differently [...] they're gonna need to come up with some kind of scheme to reimburse us [...] we want to be thinking about an alternative way of thinking about reimbursement [00.29.45...ND Koda envisions] a vehicle for you [NDs] to get reimbursed based on this model that we create and then the cost structure that will grow out of that as the profession develops as opposed to being compared to the medical model and the medical model of reimbursement [00.30.27]."

Speaking of "this model that we create", ND Koda also tells us:

"there are some prescription drugs that we are allowed [] homeopathic preparations of homeopathic drugs [01.08.55...] substance naturopathy [...] then we go and we add other substances [...such as] homeopathic preparations [00.52.47...and] combinations of any of the preceding substances [] we can put them together into one capsule [00.53.02...and] physical naturopathy [...which includes] cranial-sacral therapy [...and] visceral manipulation [00.47.47...and] colonic therapy [00.49.30]."

[Regarding visceral manipulation, Science-Based Medicine states: "this is fantasy, not science."  And regarding craniosacral therapy, Quackwatch states "I believe that most practitioners of craniosacral therapy have such poor judgment that they should be delicensed."  And regarding colonic therapy, Wikipedia states "no scientific evidence supports the alleged benefits of colon cleansing, and it 'has no known medical value and risks damage to the rectum or bowel'."  Same old naturopathic NONSENSE.  Soon to be licensed!].

Does anyone find it kind of scary that an ND will be able to encapsulate any kind of stuff in any kind of way from their own dispensary?

Because I find it a scary thought to swallow a capsule given to me by someone who claims science as a label upon such things as craniosacral therapy and figmentations!

f.) What's omitted, vitalism nonscience:

And for me this is a VERY important area, in terms of what naturopathy is NOT telling us that their very-own textbooks DO tell us.

ND Koda mentions:

"we've talked some more about our core philosophy here [00.07.45...] what we have here [in the new bill] some of our philosophy, or core principles, in these purposes that guide selection of patient care activities [00.18.10]."

I called that, by the way, their therapeutic goals, previously.

One would think that a law-writer SHOULD include the MOST-CORE principle that distinguishes naturopathy from conventional medicine in a clearly defined way if one as a writer had a goal of "clarifying ambiguities."

"It" can be easily found, actually, at the blog of the AANP titled “Physicians Who Listen”.

Or, should we say, physician's who didn't listen to their high school science teachers!

Ah, the AANP!

In a 2013 archived 2009 AANP blog post titled "Letting Nature Heal" [vsc 2014-01-08], ND Schor writes:

"are we not supposed to be naturopaths and is not our goal supposed to be to stimulate the vital force or the vis medicatrix naturae [...per] stimulating the vis [...] our image of the vis is a conglomeration of the ideas [...] the vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing power of nature [...] let me quote a respected medical writer on nature’s healing properties [...Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, whose principles are considered completely fantastical] 'what the vital force does in these so-called crises and how it does it remains a mystery to us like all the internal operations of the organic vital economy' [...and from the sidebar we're told] naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate [I accidentally say inherent] healing ability. Naturopathic doctors teach their patients to use diet, exercise, lifestyle changes and natural therapies to enhance their bodies’ ability to ward off and combat disease."

Oh, the NON-coding there and also the CODING there!

So, to me, ND Schor's entry serves as a kind of Rosetta Stone BRIDGING the code type and the transparent type of naturopathic core-belief terminology.

You get the vital force, of the vital force spirit figmentation.

You get the vis medicatrix naturae, because its always good to sex-up hokey stuff in Latin to disguise what it really is.

Which is part of naturopathy's huge MO: obfuscation.

ND Schor MUST know a thing or two about naturopathy.

His 2012 archived bio [vsc 2014-01-08] tells us:

"[he] attended the National College of Naturopathic Medicine [NCNM...] in the Summer of 2008, Dr Schor became the first recipient of the Vis Award presented to him by Lise Alschuler, president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...] Dr. Schor is serving his second term on the Board of Directors of the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians and currently serves as that association's president."

Naturopaths actually have an ANNUAL award pertaining to their vital force spirit figmentation, the Vis Award, which is kind of like imagining dentistry to have a Tooth Fairy Award or veterinary to have a Unicorn Award.

You can IMAGINE how very important that vital force figmentation is in the practice of naturopathic ONCOLOGY.

I mean, after all, the Tooth Fairy figures very prominently in dental science...

ND Koda also mentions:

"our prime directives [01.15.53...] all those modalities that you were trained in in naturopathic school [00.49.59]."

Ah, the schools, too.

That "vital force" as the "healing power of nature" “prime directive” can also be found at ND Schor's alma mater, NCNM, in the school's 2012 archived 2011 catalog [vsc 2014-01-08] which states, and I can state it no simpler or to the point, that naturopathy is:

"the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force."

And, if you look hard enough, even at ND Koda's own alma mater Bastyr, you can find in their 2011 archived 2010 school catalog [vsc 2014-01-08], this language:

"the vitalistic context of science-based naturopathic medicine."

[And keep in mind, as I detailed in Episode 003b, the vital force is defined as SPIRIT by Bastyr's founding president Pizzorno.  So, that is such a prize phrase which I can interpret this way: 'the supernatural context of science.'  Hilarious.  Except for the fact that a huge amount of clinical and academic commerce is going on beneath this 'screwed-up thinking'].

Yes, the BIG ABSURD vitalism claimed as science that it's patently not.

As a claim, it's wrong, but its one step closer to transparent in its use of, at least, the term "vitalistic".

So again, let me mention, from my introduction language, this phrase:

“an epistemic conflation as in muddle, claiming to be an epistemic delineation as in science.”

Well, having now mentioned such TRANSPARENT language, you would think the AANP's draft bill would similarly use such language.

BUT, instead, what ND Koda chooses as the bill language, to describe naturopathy's core belief, is:

"the practice of the profession of naturopathy is facilitating the identification, establishment and maintenance of optimum health and wellness. That pretty-much sums up what it is that we do, what is the role of the naturopathic doctor [00.19.36...] facilitating and augmenting the self-healing process. That's our vis natur-eye medicatrix [{he really says it that way} 00.27.01...this is all] inspired by some of our core principles [...and] by the therapeutic order [00.24.49]."

And then he says something I find quite within the pattern I mentioned earlier of veiling or coding:

"we didn't use the exact words that you may have used in our naturopathic philosophy classes."

No, indeed!

That's BAD for business!

This has been part two of this five-part Episode 004.

Post a Comment