Centers for Disease Control

Ebola, Smoking, and Mission Creep at the CDC

Controlling contagious diseases is just one of many items on the agency's to-do list.

|

Cigs
Credit: volver-avanzar/photo on flickr

Before Tom Frieden became director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2009, his two nemeses were tuberculosis and smoking. Although both are commonly described as threats to "public health," they differ in ways that may help explain the CDC's stumbles in dealing with Ebola.

Tuberculosis, which Frieden helped control in New York City and India as a CDC epidemiologist, is a contagious, potentially lethal disease. Smoking, which Frieden targeted as New York City's health commissioner, is a pattern of behavior that increases the risk of disease.

That distinction matters to people who reject paternalism as a justification for government action. We believe the use of force can be justified to protect the public from TB carriers but not to protect smokers from their own choices.

Frieden rejects that distinction. He sees the goal of public health as minimizing morbidity and mortality, even when they arise from voluntarily assumed risks, and he does not hesitate to rely on state power in pursuing that mission. For him, public health means quarantining and treating disease carriers, but it also means imposing heavy taxes on cigarettes, banning trans fats, and forcing restaurants to post calorie counts.

This understanding of public health is an open-ended license for government meddling. It is also a recipe for mission drift, as reflected in the CDC's ever-widening agenda.

"As the scope of CDC's activities expanded far beyond communicable diseases," explains CDC historian Elizabeth Etheridge, "its name had to be changed." Beginning as a branch of the Public Health Service charged with malaria control in Southern states during World War II, it became the Center for Disease Control in 1970, the Centers for Disease Control in 1981, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1992.

Today the CDC's mission includes pretty much anything associated with disease or injury. In 2013 The New York Times mentioned the agency more than 200 times. Communicable diseases accounted for 54 of those references, but the topics also included smoking, drinking, electronic cigarettes, obesity, diet, suicide, addiction, driving, sports injuries, contraception, economic inequality, domestic violence, and gun control.

If you visit the CDC's website, you will see that the agency is very interested in your life: what you eat, how much exercise you get, whether you smoke, how much you drink, whether you wear a bicycle helmet, whether you brush after meals, whether you get enough sleep. Lately Frieden and his subordinates even have found time to repeatedly warn us about the menace supposedly posed by e-cigarettes, an innovation that should be welcomed by anyone seeking to reduce tobacco-related disease.

So maybe it's not budgetary constraints so much as a lack of focus that explains the CDC's Ebola-related missteps. Frieden conceded that the CDC should have acted faster in response to the first case diagnosed in the U.S., that it should not have greenlighted air travel by a nurse with an elevated temperature who turned out to be infected, and that its initial protocols for preventing transmission to health care workers, two of whom were diagnosed with Ebola in October, were inadequate.

An Ebola expert told The New York Times the original guidelines were "absolutely irresponsible and dead wrong." He added that when he suggested as much to the CDC, "they kind of blew me off."

At the end of September, Frieden was confident that the country was Ebola-ready. "I have no doubt that we will stop it in its tracks in the U.S.," he declared. Two weeks later, he began a press briefing on a different note. "Stopping Ebola is hard," he said.

That was four days before President Obama appointed a political hack as his "Ebola czar," charged with coordinating control of the deadly virus. You may wonder: Isn't that Frieden's job? Yes, but he has a lot of other things on his plate.

Advertisement

NEXT: North Korean Embassy Officials So Broke They Run Bootlegging Ops to Make Ends Meet

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Frieden … sees the goal of public health as minimizing morbidity and mortality, even when they arise from voluntarily assumed risks, and he does not hesitate to rely on state power in pursuing that mission.

    Hmm. The government putting birth control drugs in our water and food would go a long way toward achieving this goal.

  2. “included smoking, drinking, electronic cigarettes, obesity, diet, suicide, addiction, driving, sports injuries, contraception, economic inequality, domestic violence, and gun control.”

    The not included list maybe easier.

    1. Yup. You just depressed me. Cause I know its true.

  3. Ironically depression not on that list

  4. I recall when we had banned smoking in restaurants and bars here via the ballot box all the people going aroung and saying majority rules. I was like I hope someday you are on the other side of that mob and understand what that actually means. I’m not a smoker but I voted against it.

  5. Our new bishops and preists

    1. But their hell is of this world. The High priest Ginsberg would ok water boarding of citizens if they fortified it with fluoride.

  6. As someone who has spent much of his life drinking porter,stout,wine or scotch,smoking good cigars,hunting ducks,geese deer and upland game and eating beef I fear I am on a CDC hit list somewhere. I at times drink and post here,so,I am doomed.

    1. Oh,BTW,I’m 6′,175 and have not been sick since I had the flu in 1995.

      1. I break a lot of the rules myself and haven’t had any issues. They want one set of strict regulations for everyone when it just doesn’t work that way – we’re all individuals. My genetics allow me to eat plenty of meat and have about two drinks a day instead of their maximum of 1, and I only exercise when I feel like it (or as part of my job), but I do have to avoid sugar even more than recommended to stay healthy. I’m normal weight with good labs at 35; as a low-fat eater who didn’t vape or smoke, didn’t drink at all, and tried to force herself to jog daily (and usually failed), I was obese with high cholesterol at 18.

        It’s not that the recommendations are bad in themselves, it’s just that they’re ideal as a package for almost no one, plus the emotional cost of constant deprivation. We all have things that don’t work for our bodies, and things our bodies can handle quite well, and we’re better served by enjoying the things we can and saving our willpower for avoiding the things that we really need to stay away from. It’s way easier for me to skip pie and potentially harmful drugs if I’m enjoying beef and wine and my e-cig and a bit of dancing than if I’ve been subsisting on skinless chicken, salad, and water and No Fun Allowed and putting myself through grueling runs.

        But a message of “Avoid what makes you sick and feeling bad, and if something doesn’t hurt you, enjoy it in moderation” doesn’t provide apparent justification for an authoritarian government program.

  7. Smoking is such a bad habit, its grey to know that societies are moving towards smoke-free

  8. The CDC, aren’t they the ones telling us 20% of all women going to college will be raped?

    1. Yes (though it’s higher than just 20%). They conduct surveys on sexual assault/’violence’ with horribly misleading and ridiculous questions like ‘have you ever had sex while intoxicated?’ If so, that’s sexual violence…

      I’m surprised that was left off the list provided above as its a big one where the CDC and its stats cobbled together by feminist social science majors get thrown around.

  9. Among the other things the CDC deserves credit for is helping to invent “Rape Culture” out of whole cloth…

    …. by defining “rape” to be ‘any time people have had sex while drunk’…

    …and “Sexual violence” to mean almost anything

    They determined this by purposely NOT asking people if they were “Raped”, but rather by simply adding up a sequence of questions about their sexual history and then deciding who qualified as a ‘rape victim’ for themselves, without ever notifying the person being surveyed or asking what they thought.

    Which means that even their “Rape-Rape” (aka ‘real rape’) statistic (about 1-in-10 or 12) is cast into doubt.

    Basically, they spent a few million bucks to employ an intentionally misleading methodology that results in data that probably fails to do *anything the slightest bit useful for real victims*, and is far more tuned to serve a population of activists whose goal isn’t actually ‘rape prevention’ so much as funneling money into the Title IX programs and other Federal-spending-rich boondoggles.

    Meanwhile there are still idiot parents out there who think vaccinations cause retardation. Kudos, CDC

  10. JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.

    http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/co

    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

  11. OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    OSHA SAFE LEVELS

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

  12. Well a little history lesson is now needed I can see:

    Look who first invented the Passive smoking Fraud

    Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

    One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

    That’s fine company are so called public health depts. keep with ehh!

    History can shed so much lite on todays own movement it just amazes the mind………..

    Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.”

  13. Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

    1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

    1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

    1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

    1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

    1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

    1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

    1. Cool story bro

  14. Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

    It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

    http://boltonsmokersclub.wordp…..-analysis/

    (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
    Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
    2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
    ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
    long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
    said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
    cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
    (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
    arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
    to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
    therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
    lung cancer.

    1. [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
      Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
      use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
      causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
      cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
      it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
      individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
      (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
      [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
      point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
      case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
      consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
      knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
      individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
      intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
      life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
      [7.181]).

  15. Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors – of which smoking can be one.

    Here’s my all-time favorite “scientific” study of the the anti-smoking campaign: “Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths,” Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.

    You can access the article for free on the Cato Institute’s wesbite, Cato.org. This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics.

    death by medicine” is by far the larger concern. These deaths are real, real people with real families not some defective “public health” mafia computer generated stats (SAMMEC) where no real deaths or people are counted….

  16. A little on the “slippery slope” that apparently ? according to the antismoking fanatics – doesn’t exist.

    The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” ? where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.

    Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

    While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors.

    Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of dilute smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, “innocent” nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entranceways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entranceways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.

    1. Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses, and parks and beaches.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans in backyards.

      On top of all of this, there are now instances, particularly in the USA, where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) rather than allow them to have a cigarette.

      At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking ? their smokefree “utopia” ? since the 1960s. They have prostituted their medical authority to chase ideology. All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO and that most governments are now signed-up to.

      1. This has all happened in just 20 years. If it was mentioned 20 years ago, or even 10 or 5 years ago, that smokers would be denied employment and housing, and smoking bans in parks and beaches, it would have been laughed at as “crazed thinking”. Yet here we are. Much of it has happened before and it has all been intentional, planned decades ago. We just don’t learn or we’re going to have to learn the very hard way because it has to do with far, far more than just smoking.

  17. it also means imposing heavy taxes on cigarettes, banning trans fats, and forcing restaurants to post calorie counts.

    That’s the point.

    1. Actually, this is what I meant to quote:

      This understanding of public health is an open-ended license for government meddling

      #WhatIsProofreading

    2. Bootleg cigarettes, Prohibition and the death of Eric Garner

      by Walter Olson on December 6, 2014

      Eric Garner, asphyxiated during his arrest on Staten Island, had been repeatedly picked up by the NYPD for the crime of selling loose cigarettes. Washington Examiner:

      The crime of selling “loosies” was not considered a serious one in the past. Many corner stores in New York City once sold them quietly upon request. But former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s cartoonish anti-tobacco crusade changed that and everything else. Smoking in public places was banned. Punitive taxes and a legal minimum price of $10.50 were imposed in an effort to push prices ever-upward, so that a brand-name pack of 20 cigarettes now costs as much as $14 in New York City.

      1. As a result, the illicit sale of loose and untaxed cigarettes became more commonplace.

        I noted at yesterday’s Repeal Day panel at Cato that according to figures last year, New York’s unusually high cigarette taxes had brought it an unusual distinction: an estimated 60 percent of consumption there is of smuggled or illegal cigarettes, much higher than any other state. Another way to think of it is that New York has moved closer to prohibition than to a legal market in tobacco. [earlier 2003 Cato study]

        In his history of Prohibition, Last Call, Daniel Okrent cites (among many other law enforcement misadventures) the fatal shooting of Jacob Hanson, secretary of an Elks lodge in Niagara Falls, New York, in a confrontation with alcohol agents ? though Hanson had a clean record and was not carrying alcohol. At the time, many saw Hanson’s death as reflecting poorly on the Prohibition regime generally. For some reason, though, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has drawn fire from some quarters for making a parallel observation about Garner’s death. [BBC; note however that while Garner’s frictions with the local NYPD seem to owe much to his repeated cigarette arrests, the proximate event leading to his arrest seems to have been his attempt to break up a fight]

        1. Yale’s Stephen Carter: “On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce.” [Bloomberg View via Ilya Somin]

          http://overlawyered.com/2014/1…..yday-life/

  18. ‘The so-called ‘smoking related disease’ is one of the antismokers’ cleverest inventions. To say that a disease is ‘smoking-related’ is not the same as saying that it is directly caused by smoking, or that there is any actual proof of anything. It means simply that someone has decided that smoking MAY be a factor in that disease.

    Over the last couple of decades, more and more diseases have been added to the list, often with very little evidence. Heart disease was one of the first, even though it has something like 300 risk factors, and some major studies (for instance, that of the citizens of Framingham, Massachusetts, which has been going on since 1948) have shown not only that the link with smoking is weak, but that moderate smokers have LESS heart disease than nonsmokers.

    More recently it has become fashionable to blame smoking for just about everything… from ‘clogging up’ of the arteries (which happens to everyone as they get older) to blindness (well, they can’t blame masturbation any more) to AIDS. It has also become fashionable, every time a smoker dies, to try to find a way to blame their death on smoking.
    The fact is that many statistics about smoking (and especially ‘secondhand’ smoke) are simply made up. For instance, until cervical cancer was recently proven to be caused by a virus, a completely random 13% of cases were attributed to smoking!

    1. The great thing about the ‘smoking-related disease,’ is that it allows you to create the perception of a raging epidemic. The UK government says that 100,000 or 120,000 deaths per year (depending on who is speaking at the time) are caused by ‘smoking-related disease’. The impression given is that these are all deaths specifically, and provably, caused by smoking, but it is no such thing.
      )It includes non-smokers who die of bronchitis or strokes, and smokers who die of heart attacks in their 80s. It includes people who quit smoking decades before. It is not exactly lying, but it is deliberately misleading, it is fearmongering, and in my opinion these people should be ashamed of themselves.’ ( Parmenion59’s comment

  19. I recommend the books, The Hot Zone and The Demon in the Freezer to learn about ongoing, decades long problems within the CDC.

  20. my classmate’s step-sister makes $76 every hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 8 months but last month her payment was $15130 just working on the computer for a few hours. navigate to this site………..

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  21. Ebola Drug Made From Tobacco Plant Saves U.S. Aid Workers

    A tiny San Diego-based company provided an experimental Ebola treatment for two Americans infected with the deadly virus in Liberia. The biotechnology drug, produced with tobacco plants, appears to be working.

    In an unusual twist of expedited drug access, Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc., which has nine employees, released its experimental ZMapp drug, until now only tested on infected animals, for the two health workers. Kentucky BioProcessing LLC, a subsidiary of tobacco giant Reynolds American Inc. (RAI), manufactures the treatment for Mapp from tobacco plants.

    The first patient, Kent Brantly, a doctor, was flown from Liberia to Atlanta on Aug. 2, and is receiving treatment at Emory University Hospital. Nancy Writebol, an aid worker, is scheduled to arrive in Atlanta today and will be treated at the same hospital, according to the charity group she works with. Both are improving, according to relatives and supporters.

    Each patient received at least one dose of ZMapp in Liberia before coming to the U.S., according to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..rkers.html

  22. So afraid a few smokers might find a bit of freedom just next door are they…………..tey lie cheat and connive and lets ask wha kind of grant or other BRIBE are they offering this time around………..

    ObamaCare Slush Fund used to buy local smoking bans

    Gautier Alters Anti-Smoking Ban

    Gautier’s new smoke free ordinance has now gone up in flames. At Tuesday night’s city council meeting, officials voted to alter the ordinance to allow smoking in restaurants and bars.

    Some business owners say the ordinance, adopted just last month, forces them to lose business from their smoking customers. Director of the Jackson County Mississippi Tobacco Free Coalition, Kelly Lamb, says getting rid of the ordinance will cost the city thousands of dollars in grants. The city will no longer qualify for cash awards from BlueCross BlueShield.

    Lamb says, “It’s a $50,000 grant that can go straight into the city, that can be used for walking trails, for schools, and then after you have been awarded that, it opens the door for you to be eligible for many other BlueCross BlueShield funding.” Officials voted five to two to change the ordinance.

    1. When 50 grand is told to take a hike and freedom restored the Prohibitionists must be shaking in their smokefree Utopias

      the money came str8 from the ObamaCare slush fund that was said to have been done away with by congress it was only cut from 15 billion over 10 years to 9.75 billion over ten years. BCBS is getting the lions share of that money to use as leverage to get communities in states with no bans to pass bans…………

      September 17, 2012

      Affordable Care Act Funding: An Analysis of Grant Programs under Health Care Reform

      http://tinyurl.com/k85ou3c

  23. my classmate’s step-sister makes $76 every hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 8 months but last month her payment was $15130 just working on the computer for a few hours. navigate to this site………..

    http://www.Jobs700.com

  24. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  25. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  26. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  27. before I looked at the check of $5261 , I didnt believe that…my… neighbour could truley taking home money in their spare time at there computar. . there aunts neighbour has done this 4 only and just cleared the dept on their mini mansion and bourt Honda . site link….

    ?????? http://bit.ly/11Rw9PV

  28. just before I saw the receipt which said $5461 , I didnt believe …that…my mom in-law woz like they say actually bringing in money in their spare time at there labtop. . there sisters roommate has been doing this 4 only about twenty months and by now paid the mortgage on there house and purchased themselves a Audi Quattro . this link………..www.netjob70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.