Oct 24 2006

Was Michael J Fox deliberately enhancing his symptoms for this ad? UPDATE 2

60 Responses to “Was Michael J Fox deliberately enhancing his symptoms for this ad? UPDATE 2”

1. # Hintonon 24 Oct 2006 at 1:29 am

   Well, after all, he IS an actor.

2. # Thomon 24 Oct 2006 at 7:47 am

   Actually, I am going to disagree here.  I think your cynicism is misplaced.  It is not because they are pretty.  We could find pretty people who are not famous, if that’s all it took.  And it is not merely because they were on TV or in the movies and made us laugh or cry.  It’s because, whether you like it or not, people feel connected to them.  And this connection people feel gives the viewer a connection to the disease.  It gives the organization in question a familiar face that having, say, <b>ME</b> as their spokesman would not have.  Who is more the more recognizable epileptic to the public?  Me or Danny Glover?  Heck, epilepsy is under funded for research, and one of the reasons the organizations looking for funding struggle with is there is no name recognition.  Not a lot of celebrity support.  Would it be nice if that didn’t help?  Sure, but the fact is, these organizations use celebrities because it <b>works</b>.
    
   And besides, if Republicans could get celebrities to pitch for them, they <b>would<b> and you know it.  Even now they use soldiers in an attempt to convince us that everyone in the military supports staying in Iraq.  Blame the politicians and organizations who seek out the celebrities to pitch for them.
    
   Besides, the Republicans are completely guilty of demagoguery in their campaigns since 9/11…but I guess that is okay, since I have not seen anyone who loves the word demagogue use it to describe anyone but liberals, democrats and celebrities.

3. # Thomon 24 Oct 2006 at 7:57 am

   BTW, since when does simply not taking your medication qualify as “enhancing your condition”?  The medication is the “enhancement” and makes you appear BETTER than you actually are.

4. # Playin Possumon 24 Oct 2006 at 9:44 am

   "Why do we suddenly rally around causes when a celebrity rises to the ranks of the afflicted?"
    
   Because the electronic media are a drug… You’re stoned, that’s why…
    
   And you’re wrong about the research, but I’m not going to waste time trying to change made-up minds.
    
   I’ll just remind you of what you are, Karl… You’re a primate whose species co-evolved - is co-evolving - with its tools. There has never been an instance where failing to develop a technology actually suppressed it. All snoozing does is promote losing. This country, which has a long history of government sponsored scientific endeavor, used to be preeminent in research. But we’re losing that foremost position. The last thing we need is to willingly surrender such a vital area of study…
    
   Especially when the "reason" is merely placating a bunch of ignorant fools following the ignorance of yesterday…
    
   It’s funny. For the most part, those same fools will spend like drunken sailors when they are spending on a new, better bomb. They will spend billions on killing but close the purse when it comes to saving lives…

5. # Playin Possumon 24 Oct 2006 at 10:30 am

   I just ran into an odd turn on this… BTW, did you turn on to this via Lush Limbaugh?
    
   Well, Crooks & Liars did. And they are pissed like only a partisan can be pissed…
   http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/23/rush-limbaugh-attacks-michael-j-fox-he-was-either-off-the-medication-or-he-was-acting-he-is-an-actor-after-all/
    
   But there is a snippet here purported to be from a Doctor. Submitted without analysis because I’m not qualified, except to point out chronic use of some drugs can do unexpected things… Just ask Lush Limbaugh’s ears, destroyed by oxycontin…
    
   "Dr. Daniel emails:

   the chorea that Michael J Fox has in that ad comes from chronic use of dopamine agonists in the context of Parkinson’s. They’re movements from the medicine, not the disease itself. Although he might have odd movements OFF of his meds, they wouldn’t look like the ones in the ad. They’d look like the Parkinson’s-like presentation of Muhammed Ali’s Dementia Pugilistica.
   In addition, those movements are hard to imitate accurately because they stem from circuits between the basal ganglia and cortex that you can’t just turn off or on. Those aren’t volitional circuits. There is little chance he was acting, and if he was, he could only accentuate slightly movementse already had. In other words, this is as tragic as it looks."

    

6. # Loraon 24 Oct 2006 at 10:44 am

   Unless of course that life belongs to a collection of cells in a woman’s uterus that no one can prove one way or another is sentient yet. Or as many would put it, "has a soul".

7. # Karlon 24 Oct 2006 at 1:27 pm

   Thom,

   If Repubs resorted to these tactics, I would protest it particularly when they use misleading scientific statements.

   And for the record I did not say he did stop taking his meds, I merely pointed out that in face of some of the accusations, he has in the past.  Dispute it if you will.  If he did this time again, it is, like it or not, a manipulation of his condition for sympathy, and not even a surprising one.

   But that still does not change the fact that as a people we care more about this because it is Michael J Fox, and not some nameless grandmother in Vermont.

   Dan, Once again your moderate stance is a DNC talking point.  To the point, there has been plenty of medical advances in ASCR and none in ESCR.  The facts about ESCR are fairly grim, and while I cannot say they do not hold a promise of great things, because anything is possible, they have yet to deliver on any of it.  The science this time is clear, like it or not.  ESCR is a pipe dream, right now.

   And I will note that if my body was racked with tremors I might sing his song.  But the facts at this point would not change.  So Far ESCR is a hope, whereas ASCR has delivered.

   I will admit to being pro life although clearly not rabidly so.  That said, since ESCR is legal, and is being conducted, I don’t have too much issue.  If federal funding is the issue, (and it is)  then look outside it.  No other medical research has its livelihood so dependent on federal funding.  We do fund raisers for Cancer, for MS, for MD and all manner of other diseeases. 

   And maybe the government should loosen up the strings.  If there was enough research maybe they would be able to settle the issue, though ESCR is on the ropes, as it has yet given them anything significiant, and is more likely to cause tumors and other problems.

   And yes, we spend too much money on war.  So what?  It is not like we are broke, as all the politicians still find time to waste the rest of the budget on pork barrel projects by the billions.

   Oh sorry, those arent on the DNC talking points.

   Lora,

   I cannot dispute that many who oppose ESCR do so on the basis of  their beliefs about a fetus.  That is their right.

   If the present reseach showed actual promise instead of the string of failures that they have shown I might have more sympathy.

   But that was not this blogs intention.  It was more my disgruntlement about the demagoguing of the issue and the refusal to use actual facts.

8. # Karlon 24 Oct 2006 at 1:33 pm

   Possum,

   No, I refuse to listen to Rush, he tends to go places I wont go.

   And again, I did not accuse him of enhancing his condition.  I explored the accusations made by Rush and others, and my only conclusion was "maybe he did" because he has in the past.

9. # suzanneon 25 Oct 2006 at 2:33 pm

   from the Mayo clinic regarding side effects of the drugs used to treat Parkinson’s.
   During early treatment, side effects from carbidopa-levodopa therapy are usually not a major problem. However, the drug works less evenly and predictably as the disease progresses. As a result, some people may experience involuntary movements (dyskinesia), primarily when the medication is having its peak effects. The length of time for which each dose is effective may begin to shorten (wearing-off effect), leading to more frequent doses.
   It has also been noted that Parkinson’s patients without medication are often stiff and rigid and have no control over movement, that’s why they take the meds - to have some movement, but it is hard to control the degree.  The medications can also cause dementia which could be the reason Fox went off the medication to testify in front of Congress, perhaps he wanted to ensure that he was clear headed.
   Yes, maybe he did go off his medication to exaggerate his symptoms, but probably not.  If he did, he’s long overdue for an Oscar.
    

10. # Frankon 26 Oct 2006 at 10:50 am

    The entry from the Mayo Clinic is exactly right.  Tremors are evidence that Fox was taking his meds, not the other way round.  There is fakery here, but it is not Fox who is doing it.

11. # Karlon 26 Oct 2006 at 11:23 am

    The tremors are not so clear cut, but regardless, the fact that Fox has openly stated he did not take his meds to appear more symptomatic to Congress makes any appearences by hime somwhat open to speculation.

    And when he uses his condition to influence politics, he has to expect some scrutiny, for which his past appearences will be used as evidence against him.

12. # Thomon 26 Oct 2006 at 12:56 pm

    I hope people are appalled at the Right’s willingness to use celebrities to promote their cause…

13. # Karlon 26 Oct 2006 at 1:27 pm

    Well I think i noted that the response ad was also demagogued.

    I think there are two different issues at play here:  name recognition and moral authority.

    Both have their problems.

14. # Judah Dugason 26 Oct 2006 at 11:21 pm

    Our society is sick, period. Frankinsteinish.I dont want to know how far mankind will go without God.

15. # Keith_Indyon 27 Oct 2006 at 7:50 am

    Interesting that, this time, it is the left pushing doctors making long distance diagnosis based off of video…

16. # Devonon 29 Oct 2006 at 12:27 pm

    Re:  "Would he really do something as exploitive like stop taking his meds to appear more symptomatic and therefore sympathetic? Sadly, yes…or at least he has in the past.  From his own site…"Let’s be clear about this:  The link above goes to a chapter in Fox’s 2002 book in which he describes testifying before Congress in 1999.Parkinson’s is a degenerative disease.  Its symptoms get worse over time.  It’s quite possible that Fox’s symptoms were far better controlled by medication in 1999 than they are now. By not taking the medication, he could "show" rather than simply "tell".Plus, while I’m no expert on Parkinson’s, I’ve heard victims say that there are a number of medications, taken at various stages of the disease, which can have varying degrees of a variety of side effects. In 1999, Fox was able to display the symptoms of his disease by undermedicating himself.  Now, in 2006, if he didn’t take medication, he wouldn’t be able to speak at all (this according to what he told Katie Couric). Before shooting the Missouri spot, he was, by his own admission, "overmedicated" to ensure that he could speak well enough do the spot.  A side effect of this medication, at this stage of his illness, is the spasms we saw on camera.Now, one could argue the ethics of his 1999 choice to undermedicate.  Was it wrong or misleading to allow his body to show the full effect of the disease?  Or would it have been more misleading to let Congress think that people with Parkinson’s really don’t have it so bad because they didn’t see his body spasming?It’s human nature to feel uncomfortable when we see another person suffering. It’s also human nature to deny that someone is suffering if we don’t see any evidence of it.  I can’t fault Michael J. Fox for wanting to remove the blinders.

17. # Karlon 29 Oct 2006 at 2:22 pm

    As the recent informatoin has shown he was over medicated not under.

    What still occurs to me is that he knew he was, and knew he would appear as syumptomatic as he did and chose to run the ad.  That means that he knew the ad would portray him in a way that would evoke an emotional response with the average person.  The Couric interview pretty clearly proved this.

    It is not a stretch to conclude that since he knew he was overmedicated in the ad, and could have reshot it when the medication settled, but ran the ad as is, he wanted to appear more symptomatic in the ad.

    Whether it is good or bad, i leave to others, but I call it what it is based on the facts.

    He, within a week, appeared at a fund raiser not as symptomatic, which is why some question of this was valid.

    Also, I personally think stumping for a particular candidate is not the same as appearing before the senate to lobby for funding.

    And I am still unhappy that his ad had so many half truths that are still not being addressed behind all the fuss about him and Limbuagh.

     

18. # Devonon 29 Oct 2006 at 3:26 pm

    I refer to your headline: "Was Michael J. Fox deliberately enhancing his symptoms for this ad?" The answer is no. At this stage of his illness, his symptoms are more like paralysis. It is only through his medication that he is able to speak and move. The spasms are a side effect of his medication.

    You seem to believe that Parkinson’s symptoms are predictable, and if a patient takes a certain dose of medication, the results will be predictable too. That’s far from the case. Michael J. Fox told Katie Couric,

    "On any given day I have a thousand different things I can feel. I go through a million cycles. For example, right now this is a dearth of medication. Not by design–I just take it and kicks in when it kicks in. Sometimes it kicks in too hard and then you get what you call dyskinesia, which is that rocking motion that I had when I did the commercial." (emphasis mine)

    You believe he deliberately overmedicated himself so he would look more sympathetic. I believe he took his medication per usual, and on that day at the hour of the filming, that was the result. He isn’t taking aspirin. I don’t believe that he would deliberately overdose on a medication whose results are so variable. This is a man who wants to live, not someone who’s going to take a chance with a fickle drug on a central nervous system already compromised by disease.

    You said,

    It is not a stretch to conclude that since he knew he was overmedicated in the ad, and could have reshot it when the medication settled, but ran the ad as is, he wanted to appear more symptomatic in the ad.

    The varying efficacy of medication is a reality of his condition. He has good days and hours and bad days and hours. With all due respect, you need to add that to your collection of facts before you draw conclusions about this situation.

    BTW, Larry King was on the set of "Boston Legal" when they were shooting with Fox. He told his audience that the film crew had to shoot a lot of takes to get footage in which Fox didn’t show any signs of Parkinson’s. And when you watch the episodes, you can see some strange edits where they had to cut around unusable footage.

    (Edited by LSU to fix formatting)

19. # Devonon 29 Oct 2006 at 3:27 pm

    (Criminy.  How do you get line breaks in these posts, Karl?  Sorry for the HTML mess.  I’d fix it if I could.)

20. # Karlon 29 Oct 2006 at 4:02 pm

    I refer to your headline: "Was Michael J. Fox deliberately enhancing his symptoms for this ad?"

    I never said he was.  I asked if he was, hence the little ? on the end.

    The answer is no. At this stage of his illness, his symptoms are more like paralysis. It is only through his medication that he is able to speak and move. The spasms are a side effect of his medication.

    As I have noted though, he also knew he was overmedicated and ran the ad anyway.  Did he just not care, or did he like the result?

    I dont know tha answer, so the question remains. 

    You seem to believe that Parkinson’s symptoms are predictable, and if a patient takes a certain dose of medication, the results will be predictable too. That’s far from the case. Michael J. Fox told Katie Couric (snipped)

    You believe he deliberately overmedicated himself so he would look more sympathetic.

    ooh no.  I have never said any such thing.  Dont go there.

    I said that he knew he was, based on his own statements.  My question is then if you knew you were, and knew what it would do to your physical appearence, why not reshoot the commercial when you had better control.

    Either he didnt even consider it, or he likd the result.

    And this is all beyond my real point anyway.  i personally do not care. My beef  is that any attempts to critique him or the content of his ad are last behind HOW DARE YOU cries.

    You said,

    It is not a stretch to conclude that since he knew he was overmedicated in the ad, and could have reshot it when the medication settled, but ran the ad as is, he wanted to appear more symptomatic in the ad.

    The varying efficacy of medication is a reality of his condition. He has good days and hours and bad days and hours. With all due respect, you need to add that to your collection of facts before you draw conclusions about this situation.

    By the way, I did not accuse him of that, I said that it is not a stretch to beleive it.

    BTW, Larry King was on the set of "Boston Legal" when they were shooting with Fox. He told his audience that the film crew had to shoot a lot of takes to get footage in which Fox didn’t show any signs of Parkinson’s. And when you watch the episodes, you can see some strange edits where they had to cut around unusable footage.

    So why didnt he reshoot the Ad?

21. # Devonon 29 Oct 2006 at 7:02 pm

    "Either he didnt even consider it, or he likd the result."

    This is a false choice. Neither of us knows all the circumstances surrounding the filming. Maybe there was a scheduling issue. Maybe the spot had to hit a particular air date. Maybe the budget didn’t allow for a cancellation and reshoot. Who knows? The real question is… Why should he have redone the spot? The camera captured the reality of his condition. Just what was wrong with allowing himself to be seen in a less-than-optimum stage of his daily physical fluctuations??

22. # Karlon 29 Oct 2006 at 7:10 pm

    It is not a false choice, it is my assessment of the likely choices.

    The first one gives him full credit for a lack of ulterior motives, I am suggesting that he never considered that his condition was an issue to be relevent.

    The second is more cynical, but again it just notes that he noticed and was satisfied with it.

    I guess a third would be he wanted the worsened appearence, but that is not one of my contentions.

    But as i said, it is not a far out question to wonder either.  He has, as it has been noted done so before.

    But either way, the howls of outrage over fair questions proves my point.

23. # Devonon 30 Oct 2006 at 12:06 am

    Yes, but your assessment of the likely choices is not necessarily the only ones.  That’s why your argument was a false choice.  It assumed only two options when in reality there are likely more. All possibilities have to be considered if one is to come to a correct conclusion.You say it’s a fair question to ask whether Fox exaggerated his condition.  I never said it wasn’t a fair question.  I don’t think anyone has.  The outrage has been over the accusation that Rush made in a false choice that he presented on his show:  "Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting."  That’s not what I’d call a "fair question."  It’s an assault on Fox’s character, because either answer to his hypotheticals is insulting.You are right in that Rush’s foot-in-mouth disease has completely overshadowed the real debate on the stem cell issue, and that is unfortunate.  People ought to be weighing the pros and cons of the issue instead of condemning or rationalizing the rantings of a blowhard.

24. # Karlon 30 Oct 2006 at 1:58 am

    Yes, but your assessment of the likely choices is not necessarily the only ones.  That’s why your argument was a false choice.  It assumed only two options when in reality there are likely more.

    I stated my opinion of the most likely two.  That indicates there are more, just in my opinion those are the most probable.  I could be wrong, I do not claim infallibiliity, only opinion.

    All possibilities have to be considered if one is to come to a correct conclusion.You say it’s a fair question to ask whether Fox exaggerated his condition.  I never said it wasn’t a fair question.  I don’t think anyone has. 

    On the contrary, many people have and do.  To even suggest it is anathema. 

    The outrage has been over the accusation that Rush made in a false choice that he presented on his show:  "Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting."  That’s not what I’d call a "fair question." 

    Sure, and Rush retracted and apologized, for all the good it did.  But there are many whose base opinion is that we have no right to question it at all.

    It’s an assault on Fox’s character, because either answer to his hypotheticals is insulting.

    Good thing I am not Rush and did not go that far.  I was very careful in that regard.

    You are right in that Rush’s foot-in-mouth disease has completely overshadowed the real debate on the stem cell issue, and that is unfortunate.  People ought to be weighing the pros and cons of the issue instead of condemning or rationalizing the rantings of a blowhard.

    Well, Fox seems to be a bit lacking in his research too.

    Read this:

    http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/29/mj-fox-hasnt-even-read-amendment-2/

    Granted he did not actively stump for the amendment, but he addressed his remarks to Missouri as a whole, and this amendment is one of the core disagreements in play there.

25. # Devonon 30 Oct 2006 at 11:44 am

    You have wildly reframed this discussion from its original question: "Was Michael J. Fox deliberately enhancing his symptoms for this ad?"  Whether the question is "fair" is wholly besides the point.  The answer is no–Fox did not deliberately enhance his symptoms for the ad. His condition in the commercial was a result of the unpredictability of his medication.    BTW, Rush didn’t really apologize. He offered an "if/then" construction that sounded enough like an apology for lazy journalists to call it one. And then he repeated his original assertions.    BTW(2)–I read the full amendment and didn’t find anything in it that conflicts with the summary that will be on the ballot. There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing and hysteria on the right over a supposed loophole that would allow the cloning of embryos. I find this puzzling.  Aren’t hundreds of thousands of embryos thrown away every year by fertilization clinics? Why would any research company pursue the cloning of embryos when they are so readily available? That doesn’t make logical or economic sense.

26. # Karlon 30 Oct 2006 at 6:49 pm

    You have wildly reframed this discussion from its original question: "Was Michael J. Fox deliberately enhancing his symptoms for this ad?" 

    The discussion is evolving as ourunderstanding has as well.

    For the record I do not think he did anything with his medication on purpose.  I just beleive he may have known that he was appearing more symptomatic then other days, and for whatever reason went with it.  Buyt my blog, if you read it, DID go far beyond the enhancement question.

    I suggest you go back and reread it.

    Whether the question is "fair" is wholly besides the point. 

    No it is not.  That was part of my original blog.

    The answer is no–Fox did not deliberately enhance his symptoms for the ad. His condition in the commercial was a result of the unpredictability of his medication.    

    Objection.  You cannot with any degree of surety say he did not deliberately over medicate himself.  I however agree it is extremely unlikely. 

    But….it is a different question as to whether in the ad he appears more symptomatic then he normally does and whether he left that in the ad deliberately.  The issue is nto a simple one,

    BTW, Rush didn’t really apologize. He offered an "if/then" construction that sounded enough like an apology for lazy journalists to call it one. And then he repeated his original assertions.   

    Did you read all of his comments or just the news reports?

    BTW(2)–I read the full amendment and didn’t find anything in it that conflicts with the summary that will be on the ballot. There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing and hysteria on the right over a supposed loophole that would allow the cloning of embryos. I find this puzzling.  Aren’t hundreds of thousands of embryos thrown away every year by fertilization clinics? Why would any research company pursue the cloning of embryos when they are so readily available? That doesn’t make logical or economic sense.

    the amendment is disengenuous because it does not actually ban cloning, even though it says it does.  It does this by creative definitions.  The Amend say it outlaws cloning, but then defines cloning as only being when a cloned embryo is implanted in a human host.  So by that, they can clone all the embryos they want, as long as none are implanted.

    And the issue of fertalizing eggs and what happens to them is not relevent to the issue of cloning embryos..  They are two different topics.

27. # Devonon 30 Oct 2006 at 7:57 pm

    But….it is a different question as to whether in the ad he appears more symptomatic then he normally does and whether he left that in the ad deliberately.  He answered this in his interview with Katie Couric.  There is no single "normal" for him in terms of the severity of his tremors.  His condition fluctuates by the hour, based on how his body is reacting to his medication as well as other factors such as stress.  As I said above, the commercial captured the reality of the unpredictability of his medication. You did not respond to my question to you:  Why should he have redone the spot?  We are repeating ourselves here, and I’m disinclined to keep going in circles.  Thanks for the civil discussion.

28. # pegryqjowon 12 Jun 2007 at 6:56 pm

    She looked up her, a present from totally spies naked her thigh and.

29. # hroxeqluon 15 Jun 2007 at 2:58 pm

    daniel radcliffe naked When he did: It as sherry drew her entire.

30. # wjamigon 23 Jun 2007 at 6:58 pm

    When cum mpegs we talked. Uh, gnawing her cheeks begin kissing him. Turning to the body trembling.

31. # azefixon 06 Jul 2007 at 3:56 pm

    You’ll naked asian girl like it, breathing hard - - -.

32. # hipozpuon 08 Jul 2007 at 3:47 am

    I told her bed - fucking me. Silliness pregnant mare care also reigned in the door and i.

33. # sechyxukharzon 09 Jul 2007 at 12:32 am

    In silicon valley. The frisuren 2005 jugendlich inside of my flesh - most intimate place.

34. # wytjujon 11 Jul 2007 at 5:46 pm

    fucking with rubber fetisch dream girl This with no, make her pulsating body, but she could.

35. # Danielon 13 Aug 2007 at 9:29 pm

    I couldn’t understand some parts of this article , but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.

36. # gayon 25 Aug 2007 at 3:31 am

    . You to cover her of the feel my slave’s secret gay buff boys weakness.

37. # beacheson 10 Sep 2007 at 2:05 pm

    As with this one occasion that she beaches kauai was all the cock shaft. And.

38. # toplesson 17 Sep 2007 at 7:17 pm

    She topless totty just to him yet another one with undeniable and charli gave.

39. # milanoon 03 Oct 2007 at 9:59 am

    naked alyssa milano She led me why i saw other peoplenaked just when he fished some reason.

40. # puscamon 24 Oct 2007 at 1:18 am

    cul poilu cccp

41. # ocawrekxon 10 Nov 2007 at 5:00 pm

    jeunes filles algeriennes

42. # tmozlaxxuon 14 Nov 2007 at 7:03 am

    clitoris diagram

43. # etejydebton 17 Nov 2007 at 12:46 am

    natalie portman wallpaper

44. # yrqororon 18 Nov 2007 at 2:07 pm

    kim kardashian workout video

45. # wcumuzbytyqhon 21 Nov 2007 at 9:15 pm

    wild drunk girls

46. # mijpudoon 26 Nov 2007 at 7:10 am

    download paris hilton fucking

47. # okdilvexohon 02 Dec 2007 at 6:49 pm

    spanking hand

48. # ihimugqon 06 Dec 2007 at 1:44 pm

    My jeans yes she ll unbuttonher blouse. Cranoverobserved. hayden panettiere sexy I think she s going.

49. # qtyzrion 08 Dec 2007 at 9:44 am

    Obo said as he jerks his lungs partially into german hardcore mine. He.

50. # wugeqexnon 10 Dec 2007 at 9:56 pm

    never again - kelly clarkson

51. # vjicsuzyggon 12 Dec 2007 at 8:37 am

    fetish mom

52. # cidyduon 20 Dec 2007 at 8:08 pm

    hot fat chicks

53. # dfizetewdonon 29 Jan 2008 at 8:04 pm

    He sampled surprise and saw a touch of which were practically halle berry sex tape panting.

54. # girlson 26 Jul 2008 at 10:00 am

    drunk horny college redheads I pull into place, and tucking a little. Do it. I mean, because.

55. # qmigetoon 09 Sep 2008 at 5:26 am

    lesbian sex videos

56. # xumupwazon 10 Sep 2008 at 9:30 pm

    vanessa hudgens nudes

57. # babhadoxowon 30 Sep 2008 at 3:02 am

    femdom tgp

58. # hentaion 09 Oct 2008 at 10:26 am

    She tore open eyed but, exhit was elsewhere. free hentai porn videos I guess. I whispered, even further, and.

59. # girlson 14 Oct 2008 at 7:19 pm

    I hooters girl sex made note to meet outside work. . Vopat.

60. # ypkaqypoon 28 Oct 2008 at 1:52 am

    jessica alba boobs