Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:58 PM
filmore filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,247
Chronic medical conditions that can easily be treated but would otherwise be fatal (e.g. diabetes)

"Easy" is of course relative, but what other medical conditions are like diabetes where the patient can easily take some kind of medication on a regular basis to manage it, yet if they didn't have the medication the condition would likely be fatal. Of course, diabetes has complications and can still shorten lifespans even when well managed, but many diabetics lead a pretty normal life without their condition being too imposing. I was trying to think of other organ issues (thyroid? gallbladder?), but I couldn't think of any that would be fatal if not for easily administered medicine.
  #2  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:00 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,205
Lots of infectious diseases. Pneumonia, HIV, leprosy, etc.

Also how do you define 'fatal'?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663724/

Quote:
The tables show substantial potential gains in life expectancy within every age group from modifying major risk factors. The estimated life expectancy of men at age of 55 years with type 2 diabetes, 5 years after diagnosis, varies between 13.2 years for a patient who smokes, has systolic blood pressure of 180 mmHg, a total:HDL cholesterol ratio of 8, and HbA1c of 10%, and 21.1 years for a non-smoker with SBP of 120 mmHg, total/HDL ratio of 4, and HbA1c of 6%.
So the life expectancy gap of men diagnosed with type 2 diabetes is 8 years between 2 groups. One that smokes, has an A1C of 10%, bad cholesterol, high blood pressure.

The other group has all the right health parameters.

But that is four parameters, and I'd assume smoking makes up a huge % of that gap since the life expectancy gap from smoking alone is something like 10 years. So according to that, the life expectancy gap from the A1C alone is probably under 5 years.

So again, I don't know how you define fatal. It is one thing to die of pneumonia at age 16. It is another to die of untreated diabetes at age 72, when treated diabetes would've seen you live to 76 or so. After a while, you are just dying of complications of old age.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 01-21-2019 at 10:04 PM.
  #3  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:09 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,205
Unless you meant type 1 diabetes, in which case ignore my post.

Also some cancers can be treated well now while those same cancers were highly fatal in the past. But I can't remember the names right now. Some pediatric cancers used to be highly fatal but now have much better survival rates.

Also some nutritional deficiencies. Scurvy, beri beri, etc
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 01-21-2019 at 10:10 PM.
  #4  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:09 PM
Ranger Jeff Ranger Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,837
Hypertension.
  #5  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:19 PM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,785
Cholera.

Caught early, adequate supply of clean drinking water alone will cure.

Even in the worst cases oral rehydration or intravenous fluids and electrolytes will reduce fatalities by 99%.
  #6  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:27 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,959
Thyroid disease can indeed be fatal if not treated, although that's very unusual in the developed world.
  #7  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:34 PM
filmore filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,247
I'm mostly wondering about medical conditions which don't actually have a cure. So things like cancer, flu, etc. aren't really what I was initially wondering about, since people don't typically live with those conditions for years and years. I'm more wondering about medical conditions which would greatly shorten someone's life, but with regular medication the person can live a typical lifespan without too much inconvenience. So hypertension mentioned above would probably be more in line with what I was wondering. With proper medication, the health effects of hypertension can be greatly minimized. And while under medication, the person can still have a pretty typical quality of life.

Last edited by filmore; 01-21-2019 at 10:35 PM.
  #8  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:38 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,732
I think HIV fits the conditions. Undetectable people don’t have a perfect life, but it’s pretty manageable.
  #9  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:41 PM
dtilque dtilque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
.
Also some cancers can be treated well now while those same cancers were highly fatal in the past. But I can't remember the names right now. Some pediatric cancers used to be highly fatal but now have much better survival rates.
Chronic myeloid leukemia comes immediately to mind. I'm sure there are others.
  #10  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:50 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
I'm mostly wondering about medical conditions which don't actually have a cure. So things like cancer, flu, etc. aren't really what I was initially wondering about, since people don't typically live with those conditions for years and years. I'm more wondering about medical conditions which would greatly shorten someone's life, but with regular medication the person can live a typical lifespan without too much inconvenience. So hypertension mentioned above would probably be more in line with what I was wondering. With proper medication, the health effects of hypertension can be greatly minimized. And while under medication, the person can still have a pretty typical quality of life.
Before antibiotics people used to live with diseases like TB for years.

As far as hypertension, treating the disease adds 2-11 months in quality adjusted life years.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1708013

Thats not nothing, but it also means that an untreated hypertensive may die on average at 78 while the treated one dies at 79.

Which again, where do you draw the line regarding 'fatal'? Is someone dying at 79 years and 6 months being treated for a fatal disease, when the untreated person only lived for 79 years and 2 months suffering an early death? Many medical treatments nowadays are more designed to slightly slow the progression of diseases of old age. I'm not sure if that's really 'saving lives' in the most objective meaning of the term.

Sanitation, clean drinking water, vaccinations, antibiotics, appendectomies, seat belts, air bags, narcan, etc. save lives. Medications that cause people to live to 82 instead of 81 arguably are just delaying death from old age for a year. I believe curing all forms of cancer 100% would only increase human life expectancy by about 3 years.

IMO most medical interventions that actually save lives (meaning they add meaningful years to life expectancy) usually come down to ways to combat deaths from infections, malnutrition, poisoning and physical trauma. Much of the rest of medicine seems devoted to combatting diseases of aging.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 01-21-2019 at 10:53 PM.
  #11  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:58 PM
dtilque dtilque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
I'm mostly wondering about medical conditions which don't actually have a cure. So things like cancer, flu, etc. aren't really what I was initially wondering about, since people don't typically live with those conditions for years and years.
CML, which I just posted about, is exactly what you seem to want. It's treated with targeted therapy, i.e. certain drugs (about 5 or 6 different ones, depending on the specific mutation that causes it) which keep it under control. It's fatal without treatment, but people live for years with treatment. The same drugs also treat certain cancers of the GI tract.
  #12  
Old 01-21-2019, 11:09 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,959
Until the late 1990s, CML was a death sentence without a bone marrow transplant, a procedure that still kills a high percentage of its patients outright. Even with treatment, these patients are still chronically ill and the meds have unpleasant side effects of their own.

Treatments for hypertension have also improved dramatically over time. I believe that the reduction in smoking has done more to reduce the M&M from this than any other single factor.

M&M = morbidity and mortality
  #13  
Old 01-21-2019, 11:12 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Also some cancers can be treated well now while those same cancers were highly fatal in the past. But I can't remember the names right now. Some pediatric cancers used to be highly fatal but now have much better survival rates.

Also some nutritional deficiencies. Scurvy, beri beri, etc
Nutritional diseases can be cured or prevented with an adequate diet.

As for cancers, are you thinking specifically of Hodgkin's disease or acute lymphoblastic leukemia, both of which used to be essentially 100% fatal but now have cure rates over 90%? Most types of testicular cancer are also highly curable (with probably the most brutal chemotherapy regimens on the planet) but that wasn't previously the case.
  #14  
Old 01-21-2019, 11:36 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,205
Nutritional deficiencies can be treated, but it generally wasn't until the early 20th century that we understood what vitamins were, and what diseases they caused when people were deficient. A person in the 19th century didn't really know what caused or treated scurvy or beri beri. For much of human history, various vitamin/mineral deficiencies would qualify as chronic medical conditions that can easily be treated but would otherwise be fatal. Millions of sailors died from scurvy, and now it is very easy to treat.

I'm not sure what cancers I'm thinking about honestly. CML sounds like one of the cancers, but there are hundreds of cancers and I am not sure which ones have undergone major advances in treatment in the last few decades.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 01-21-2019 at 11:37 PM.
  #15  
Old 01-21-2019, 11:56 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
I'm mostly wondering about medical conditions which don't actually have a cure. So things like cancer, flu, etc. aren't really what I was initially wondering about, since people don't typically live with those conditions for years and years.
The guy from whom I bought my house had had cancer for 11 years at that point (some sort of lymphoma but that's all I know). It's one of the reasons the house is kind of weird (no doors in places which would normally have one, a door in the middle of the hallway): he'd used his Good Times to adapt it for the Bad Times. As time went on and treatment improved he'd eventually gotten to the point where the cancer was considered a chronified condition; the Bad Times didn't even come any more. Since he had been granted full disability/retirement and been told this wasn't reversable (the law simply hasn't caught up with the science yet), he was moving to a residence close to his sister's place so he'd have more stuff to do than mop around the flat and meet his friends for a beer on Saturdays.





The treatment is not medication but transfusions: people with acute thalasemia or with hemophilia get regular transfusions without which they'd die.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 01-21-2019 at 11:58 PM.
  #16  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:02 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Before antibiotics people used to live with diseases like TB for years.
Still do, in some places. It's one of the things for which subsaharian inmigrants to Spain get regularly checked, after our medics realized that a noticeable amount weren't just "positive for tuberculine" (which the immense majority of Spain is), they were actually sick. Many of them haven't seen a doctor in their life; imagine the shock and fear when someone tries to take X-Rays or a blood sample. Social Services and the hospitals themselves are desperate for interpreters / advocates for these patients.
  #17  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:04 AM
filmore filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Which again, where do you draw the line regarding 'fatal'? Is someone dying at 79 years and 6 months being treated for a fatal disease, when the untreated person only lived for 79 years and 2 months suffering an early death? Many medical treatments nowadays are more designed to slightly slow the progression of diseases of old age. I'm not sure if that's really 'saving lives' in the most objective meaning of the term.
More of what I'm thinking are the things which would be quickly fatal if left untreated. Just cutting a few months off an average lifespan wouldn't really be what I'm thinking (scratching off hypertension). I'm wondering about conditions which would probably be fatal in the short term, but with medication the person could live close to a traditional lifespan without undue effort. So far I would say the list of conditions would be these :

- Type 1 diabetes
- HIV
- CML

Of those, diabetes seems way easier to manage. The other two seem like you'd have to go to the doctor a lot and take a cocktail of drugs depending on your current state. That's probably at the edge of what I would consider "easy". Anything more complicated (like dialysis) would significantly impact your quality of life.

Last edited by filmore; 01-22-2019 at 12:05 AM.
  #18  
Old 01-22-2019, 05:04 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,568
In addition to the above, certain types of thyroid malfunction can be fatal but are now treatable.

Several auto-immune conditions that can be fatal can be treated these days.

Heart disease that responds to pacemakers or implantable defibrillators.
  #19  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:21 AM
InsomniaMama InsomniaMama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 475
Has asthma seriously not been mentioned yet?
  #20  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:28 AM
Athena Athena is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: da UP, eh
Posts: 13,384
Not always fatal, but Pernicious Anemia is pretty bad, yet easily controlled with vitamin B. I was diagnosed with it at the same time I was diagnosed with T1 diabetes, and pretty much took it as ‘ok, I need to take my vitamins every day.’

It wasn’t until the old dude on Downton Abbey thought he was dying of it that I thought to look it up and realized how serious it could be. Who knew?!?
  #21  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:38 AM
ZipperJJ's Avatar
ZipperJJ ZipperJJ is offline
Just Lovely and Delicious
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 25,010
Kidney failure? People live a long time on dialysis but without it, they'd die.
  #22  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:50 AM
filmore filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZipperJJ View Post
Kidney failure? People live a long time on dialysis but without it, they'd die.
Yeah, kidney failure is along the same lines, but dialysis is pretty inconvenient. I'm not sure I would consider that easy (but it's probably better than death! )

Asthma mentioned above is something that we probably don't think about since it's so easily treated. It's common to forget that it could be a fatal condition otherwise.
  #23  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:50 AM
CelticKnot CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsomniaMama View Post
Has asthma seriously not been mentioned yet?
What I was going to say. I wonder if some people think it's a minor ailment and not possibly fatal.
I was shocked to hear someone say that his wife died of an asthma attack before I was diagnosed myself.

ninja'd

Last edited by CelticKnot; 01-22-2019 at 09:51 AM.
  #24  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:41 AM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,428
My wife's thyroid gland died, but the lack is easily treatable. What is surprising is how hard it is to dose. Right now, she is alternating between 1.125 mg and 1.250 mg. Too much (1.250 every day) results in heart palpitations and too little in lethargy. She is monitored by measuring thyroid stimulating hormone.
  #25  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:32 PM
DemonTree DemonTree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 39
Nava mentioned Haemophilia, that certainly fits the bill. Used to be fatal but can now be treated with clotting factors. Coeliac disease is treatable and probably causes earlier death if not, but I don't think you'd call it fatal. But how about Addison's disease? No cure, and an 'Addisonian crisis' can be fatal if untreated.
  #26  
Old 01-22-2019, 01:28 PM
dtilque dtilque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
Until the late 1990s, CML was a death sentence without a bone marrow transplant, a procedure that still kills a high percentage of its patients outright. Even with treatment, these patients are still chronically ill and the meds have unpleasant side effects of their own.
My understanding is that most CML patients lead fairly normal lives with the targeted drugs. The side effects are usually fairly mild, although there will always be a small fraction who have more severe reactions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
So far I would say the list of conditions would be these :

- Type 1 diabetes
- HIV
- CML

Of those, diabetes seems way easier to manage. The other two seem like you'd have to go to the doctor a lot and take a cocktail of drugs depending on your current state. That's probably at the edge of what I would consider "easy". Anything more complicated (like dialysis) would significantly impact your quality of life.
No cocktail of drugs with CML. One pill a day. And once the condition is under control, probably no more doctor's visits than type-1 diabetes. The other drugs are because occasionally a drug will stop working (because the leukemia has had an additional mutation that blocks it) so they have to switch to a different drug.
  #27  
Old 01-22-2019, 03:05 PM
Thylacine Thylacine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Marvellous Melbourne, Oz
Posts: 939
I can't take an anti cholinergic lung drug and my doctor once exclaimed that it was like treating me in the 1920s, "millions of people are alive and thriving today because of Spiriva" so perhaps smoking related severe COPD should be on the list.
__________________
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
  #28  
Old 01-22-2019, 05:41 PM
Qadgop the Mercotan's Avatar
Qadgop the Mercotan Qadgop the Mercotan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Slithering on the hull
Posts: 26,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thylacine View Post
I can't take an anti cholinergic lung drug and my doctor once exclaimed that it was like treating me in the 1920s, "millions of people are alive and thriving today because of Spiriva" so perhaps smoking related severe COPD should be on the list.
No, not really.

Modern COPD treatments are better at reducing the symptoms, but they do little to modify the course of the disease, unfortunately. Lives are improved but not really extended, for the average COPD patient. Even pulmonary rehab, which has helped so many breathe easier, has not conclusively been shown to add to the lifespan.

Last edited by Qadgop the Mercotan; 01-22-2019 at 05:44 PM.
  #29  
Old 01-22-2019, 05:57 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsomniaMama View Post
Has asthma seriously not been mentioned yet?
Allergies and asthma vary considerably in how severe they are. In addition, there have been medicines for those for a long time, although none of the herbal ones were/are as effective as things like modern steroids. Also a lot of nonesense treatments back in the past, just like a lot of any medical science in the past was nonsense.

I mentioned auto-immune problems. Severe allergies/asthma are immune system problems so that sort of covered them.
  #30  
Old 01-22-2019, 06:57 PM
Qadgop the Mercotan's Avatar
Qadgop the Mercotan Qadgop the Mercotan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Slithering on the hull
Posts: 26,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Allergies and asthma vary considerably in how severe they are.
Unfortunately, having mild intermittent asthma (defined as having 2 or fewer attacks per week) is not automatically protective against having a fatal asthma attack. They may be infrequent but they can still be fatal. 3000 to 5000 people die every year in the US from asthma attacks.
  #31  
Old 01-22-2019, 07:06 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan View Post
Unfortunately, having mild intermittent asthma (defined as having 2 or fewer attacks per week) is not automatically protective against having a fatal asthma attack. They may be infrequent but they can still be fatal. 3000 to 5000 people die every year in the US from asthma attacks.
Or worse - they are left permanently brain-damaged. When I lived in my old town, I met a family whose daughter was left in the state of locked-in syndrome as a result of an asthma attack when she was a teenager. She was fully conscious and aware of everything that was going on around here, but unable to communicate or do anything for herself.

Her parents left their previous jobs and founded this company.

http://www.personalmobilityinc.com/
  #32  
Old 01-22-2019, 07:21 PM
Tapiotar Tapiotar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,530
Bladder cancer. With treatment, it becomes a chronic condition. A cousin has had it for decades. It occurs, he gets a "root-rooter" treatment and chemo, it subsides, and some years later, it comes back, and is treated again. This has gone on for at least three decades, if not four. So I think this counts.
  #33  
Old 01-22-2019, 07:23 PM
Tapiotar Tapiotar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
Or worse - they are left permanently brain-damaged. When I lived in my old town, I met a family whose daughter was left in the state of locked-in syndrome as a result of an asthma attack when she was a teenager. She was fully conscious and aware of everything that was going on around here, but unable to communicate or do anything for herself.

Her parents left their previous jobs and founded this company.

http://www.personalmobilityinc.com/
This is so sad.
  #34  
Old 01-23-2019, 11:29 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan View Post
Unfortunately, having mild intermittent asthma (defined as having 2 or fewer attacks per week) is not automatically protective against having a fatal asthma attack. They may be infrequent but they can still be fatal. 3000 to 5000 people die every year in the US from asthma attacks.
Well, yes, as someone with mild intermittent asthma who has nonetheless twice landed in the ER due to allergies/asthma I do understand that. However, I read the OP as looking for conditions that require daily treatment of some sort, like diabetes. Asthma doesn't always require that (although probably more asthmatics should take something daily than do so, but that's getting into all sorts of tangents)
  #35  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:42 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,921
I've got Atrial Fibrillation, which I treat with Warfarin to thin my blood and a drug which helps regulate my heart rhythm. Without these I could get a clot from pooling blood at any time.
It's been at least 10 years, and no impact on my life - except sometimes I think the phone in my shirt pocket is vibrating when it isn't.
  #36  
Old 01-24-2019, 01:54 AM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Well, yes, as someone with mild intermittent asthma who has nonetheless twice landed in the ER due to allergies/asthma I do understand that. However, I read the OP as looking for conditions that require daily treatment of some sort, like diabetes. Asthma doesn't always require that (although probably more asthmatics should take something daily than do so, but that's getting into all sorts of tangents)
The OP doesn't say daily; it says "on a regular basis." Those of us who take methotrexate to treat lupus take the entire dose (6 tabs for me) once a week. Those taking Benlysta get infusions via IV every 4 weeks. And of course, some medications are taken daily.

So the question re: asthma is whether most patients have to use medication regularly but not necessarily daily.
  #37  
Old 01-24-2019, 07:30 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonTree View Post
Coeliac disease is treatable and probably causes earlier death if not, but I don't think you'd call it fatal.
People with untreated celiac or sprue are at a higher risk of lymphoma, and until recently, it was very misunderstood. It was thought to be a childhood disorder of fat digestion that kids usually outgrew; one "treatment" was a diet consisting mainly of bananas (which, granted, are gluten-free).
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017