What is the verdict on ecdysterone and turkesterone?

Shadowblaze

Shadowblaze

Active member
Do they actually help with muscle growth and strength? Almost all the evidence I have seen is conflicting and everyone has a different opinion on whether they actually work.
 
This thread is about to cause a major meltdown from someone

OP despite what ANYONE else in this thread may say Ecdy’s and Turk work, and they work very well actually but I don’t think they directly build muscle and strength. For me it’s more performance enhancement. Recovery, less rest in between sets, more reps, more energy, just f’n amazing. The best supplement I ever tried was 2000mg of Turk from an old forum sponsor. Til this day, nothing has come close to the performance boost in the gym I saw from it. Absolutely incredible and several people echo’d the same thing in a now deleted thread.

However the issue is two things. #1 is sourcing. There just aren’t many options for the good stuff anymore. My favorite is Tonvara’s turk. You get a minimum of 10% turk and 10% ecdy.

The other issue, which is I think is the biggest one, is that cost for cost there are better options imo. Running the former product I mentioned cost about $135 a month to run, for Tonvara it would be an insane $240 a month to run 2000mg. You can stack three supplements from SNS (anabolic xt, anabolic effect, and phosphatidic acid xt for $132 shipped) or even run straight test for much less than that. When looked at it that way, turk becomes less appealing
 
Last edited:
I agree with mechka- I loved it back in the day when i ran it but I ran it almost full time. It seemed to really help with recovery more than anything for me. I have been thinking about running it again as it's been some time but I have more supplements than I know what to do with at the moment! lol!
 
I think they definitely work for strength and muscle growth just not as quickly or as powerfully as anabolic steroids of course. Like @mechka_grizli said sourcing and cost is an issue. Most companies just use cyanotis vega as the source for most ecdysterone products but there is a small group of people that think the best source is a full spectrum "10 levseins" rhaponticum carthamoides extract. I also think the latter is the best source but it is very expensive. Same with turkesterone. Most companies just use some Chinese source but the best source is probably from Uzbekistan and it is expensive as well. Now some think that the full spectrum "10 levsiens" rhaponticum carthamoides extract is the more anabolic of the two because it has the full complement of other ecdysteroids that are anabolic as well including turkesterone. There is also the issue of bioavailability. Some think ecdysterone is absorbed just fine while others believe it is best used topically or combined with a cyclodextrin. I am not sure but if I had the money to make an ecdysterone supplement I probably would use some kind of bioavailability and absorption enhancers(Phytosome/Astragin/Bioperine??) just to be on the safe side. Now Black Lion Research has come out with a product called Formeron that uses a plant called atriplex dimorphostegia. It is a ecdysteroid based plant that was shown in a study to outperfom test and dianabol as it relates to muscle growth. I think ecdysteroids have great potential. We just need the proper source, dosage, and possibly bioavailability/absorption enhancers to really get the best results.

​

 
mechka_grizli said:
This thread is about to cause a major meltdown from someone

OP despite what ANYONE else in this thread may say Ecdy’s and Turk work, and they work very well actually but I don’t think they directly build muscle and strength. For me it’s more performance enhancement. Recovery, less rest in between sets, more reps, more energy, just f’n amazing. The best supplement I ever tried was 2000mg of Turk from an old forum sponsor. Til this day, nothing has come close to the performance boost in the gym I saw from it. Absolutely incredible and several people echo’d the same thing in a now deleted thread.

However the issue is two things. #1 is sourcing. There just aren’t many options for the good stuff anymore. My favorite is Tonvara’s turk. You get a guaranteed 10% turk and 10%ecdy.

The other issue, which is I think is the biggest one, is that cost for cost there are better options imo. Running the former product I mentioned cost about $135 a month to run, for Tonvara it would be an insane $240 a month to run 2000mg. You can stack three supplements from SNS (anabolic xt, anabolic effect, and phosphatidic acid xt for $132 shipped) or even run straight test for much less than that. When looked at it that way, turk becomes less appealing
Click to expand...
I really like the in depth answer, it does seem like ecdysteroids as a whole are a bit hit or miss. Some people love them, others don’t notice anything from them. I think I’ll be buying a bottle soon. I know cel sells ecdy plex and it seems like that’s the best one, however if double dosing is really that much better your right, it would get very expensive very quickly.
 
I had great results last year with CEL's Ecdy-plex.

Can't remember for how many months I took it straight but there was noticeable strength gains.

As a matter of fact, I'm back on it as of yesterday.
 
mechka_grizli said:
This thread is about to cause a major meltdown from someone

OP despite what ANYONE else in this thread may say Ecdy’s and Turk work, and they work very well actually but I don’t think they directly build muscle and strength. For me it’s more performance enhancement. Recovery, less rest in between sets, more reps, more energy, just f’n amazing. The best supplement I ever tried was 2000mg of Turk from an old forum sponsor. Til this day, nothing has come close to the performance boost in the gym I saw from it. Absolutely incredible and several people echo’d the same thing in a now deleted thread.

However the issue is two things. #1 is sourcing. There just aren’t many options for the good stuff anymore. My favorite is Tonvara’s turk. You get a guaranteed 10% turk and 10%ecdy.

The other issue, which is I think is the biggest one, is that cost for cost there are better options imo. Running the former product I mentioned cost about $135 a month to run, for Tonvara it would be an insane $240 a month to run 2000mg. You can stack three supplements from SNS (anabolic xt, anabolic effect, and phosphatidic acid xt for $132 shipped) or even run straight test for much less than that. When looked at it that way, turk becomes less appealing
Click to expand...
Did you take that dose solo or was it in a cyclodextrin complex or with other absorption enhancers like bioperine?
 
Shadowblaze said:
Did you take that dose solo or was it in a cyclodextrin complex or with other absorption enhancers like bioperine?
Click to expand...
It was solo, just 200mg per capsule of Ajuga Turkestanica from ICPS. Use to take five caps in the morning and five caps pre workout for a total of 2000mg
 
mechka_grizli said:
This thread is about to cause a major meltdown from someone

OP despite what ANYONE else in this thread may say Ecdy’s and Turk work, and they work very well actually but I don’t think they directly build muscle and strength. For me it’s more performance enhancement. Recovery, less rest in between sets, more reps, more energy, just f’n amazing. The best supplement I ever tried was 2000mg of Turk from an old forum sponsor. Til this day, nothing has come close to the performance boost in the gym I saw from it. Absolutely incredible and several people echo’d the same thing in a now deleted thread.

However the issue is two things. #1 is sourcing. There just aren’t many options for the good stuff anymore. My favorite is Tonvara’s turk. You get a minimum of 10% turk and 10% ecdy.

The other issue, which is I think is the biggest one, is that cost for cost there are better options imo. Running the former product I mentioned cost about $135 a month to run, for Tonvara it would be an insane $240 a month to run 2000mg. You can stack three supplements from SNS (anabolic xt, anabolic effect, and phosphatidic acid xt for $132 shipped) or even run straight test for much less than that. When looked at it that way, turk becomes less appealing
Click to expand...

I was one of those from in that thread who also took 2000mg of turk and it did work. Best endurance supplement i ever ran. If money wasnt an issue id still be on it, but I do think it exisit anymore. I took it for 4 months. Wish I had it now for bjj/mma
 
chainsaw said:
I was one of those from in that thread who also took 2000mg of turk and it did work. Best endurance supplement i ever ran. If money wasnt an issue id still be on it, but I do think it exisit anymore. I took it for 4 months. Wish I had it now for bjj/mma
Click to expand...
I was hoping some others would chime in. Stuff was amazing and sucks that they aren’t around anymore. Had I known it worked that well, I would have bought as many bottles as I could
 
mechka_grizli said:
I was hoping some others would chime in. Stuff was amazing and sucks that they aren’t around anymore. Had I known it worked that well, I would have bought as many bottles as I could
Click to expand...
He did offer some really nice deals. Last I remembered he said new stuff wouldn't be the same... that thread should of never been deleted. It was a good resource
 
Shadowblaze said:
Did any of you notice significant results when it comes strictly to size and strength gains?
Click to expand...

I was 39 at the time. 4 months on anything natural is not putting on size unless you are in a calorie surplus. To build actual muscle tissue id be lucky to gain 1lb a year natural. The endurance kept me training longer and more intense so im sure it would equal to muscle development over a long period of time. I don't think it's a miracle supplement like steroids. However in the natural world it was definitely worth it.
 
Shadowblaze said:
Did any of you notice significant results when it comes strictly to size and strength gains?
Click to expand...
Yeah I used Mass Pro Synthagen and gained noticeable size and strength from it. It is expensive and I was using 15 caps per day. Now that product is ecdysterone plus amino acids and other cofactors. It was also very effective for recovery.
 
I’ve run the combo now for 4 months. A good natty sort of way to go. I have increased strength and kept the weight off.
 
I had written it off a while back but this thread had me wanting to do a 4+ month run soon and give it another go.
 
definately not worth a money, anyway as you can see above ... placebo is still one of the most stron "supplement" :D.

You will easily find much better natty supplements on a market much more worth your money
 
I would respectfully disagree with placebo. Everyone is different. I used this years ago with MStack back in the day. Now I’m running again with good results. I’m running for my 3rd month with urolithin and ursolic acid. I was adding epicathin but missed my chance at the one I wanted.
 
Shadowblaze said:
Do they actually help with muscle growth and strength? Almost all the evidence I have seen is conflicting and everyone has a different opinion on whether they actually work.
Click to expand...

I usually avoid this subject because at one time, I compared it to politics on here - there was a group that loved it and a group that hated it and they seemed to have no interest in a discussion and just argued and insulted each other until most threads about it got deleted.

Some people say they worked great, other people say they didn't work at all and it was like people would argue so hard about whether they work or not, they would miss the simple fact - that ingredients like this are going to work better for some people that others.

That's why I rarely mention CEL Ecdy-Plex - https://competitiveedgelabs.com/product/ecdy-plex/

CEL Ecdy-Plex is a great product and its there for people that want to try it, but I don't ever mention it much because I avoid this subject like the plague because there's been too much arguing over it.

To me, there are several considerations:
  • There are a lot of quality issues with the ingredients and standardizations are all over the place and some brands intentionally test by the wrong method(s) to artificially inflate the purity percentage.
  • These ingredients, even the best quality ones, are going to work better for some people than others.
  • As @mechka_grizli said, by the time that you mega dose some of the ones people were running crazy dosages of, you could use an awesome stack like Anabolic Effect, Anabolic XT, Prime XT, Pepti-Bolic, and Alpha One for less if caught on sale.
 
sns8778 said:
I usually avoid this subject because at one time, I compared it to politics on here - there was a group that loved it and a group that hated it and they seemed to have no interest in a discussion and just argued and insulted each other until most threads about it got deleted.

Some people say they worked great, other people say they didn't work at all and it was like people would argue so hard about whether they work or not, they would miss the simple fact - that ingredients like this are going to work better for some people that others.

That's why I rarely mention CEL Ecdy-Plex - https://competitiveedgelabs.com/product/ecdy-plex/

CEL Ecdy-Plex is a great product and its there for people that want to try it, but I don't ever mention it much because I avoid this subject like the plague because there's been too much arguing over it.

To me, there are several considerations:
  • There are a lot of quality issues with the ingredients and standardizations are all over the place and some brands intentionally test by the wrong method(s) to artificially inflate the purity percentage.
  • These ingredients, even the best quality ones, are going to work better for some people than others.
  • As @mechka_grizli said, by the time that you mega dose some of the ones people were running crazy dosages of, you could use an awesome stack like Anabolic Effect, Anabolic XT, Prime XT, Pepti-Bolic, and Alpha One for less if caught on sale.
Click to expand...
Even stacking just two of any of those is great with the proper diet and training. Like you said everyone’s body is different, but these newer supplements have such a wide variety of benefits, that they seem to help everyone, especially in the long run, given time….Especially us older dudes.
 
I've just pointed out that there are much more efficient natty supps on a market in a pretty same amount of money, like optimize-t for natural test rise (of course still in your natty lvl range - just add quality ksm66 to it also ;)) or CEL anabolic effect which has a lot of reviews and I can personally reccomend this as a user. Just sayin that for example these two above are worth a money, but you can sepnd the same money on hmb, d-leucine or other edcydosterone, turkesterone, laxogenin, ursolic acid etc etc. Respect your money and your work ;)
 
Blasphemon said:
I've just pointed out that there are much more efficient natty supps on a market in a pretty same amount of money, like optimize-t for natural test rise (of course still in your natty lvl range - just add quality ksm66 to it also ;)) or CEL anabolic effect which has a lot of reviews and I can personally reccomend this as a user. Just sayin that for example these two above are worth a money, but you can sepnd the same money on hmb, d-leucine or other edcydosterone, turkesterone, laxogenin, ursolic acid etc etc. Respect your money and your work ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah makes sense, I understand what you were trying to say.

Ursolic acid definitely works though.
 
Boldanic definitely works. I gained a little size and lost body fat. I increased calories 500 daily and still lost some fat. Definitely worked
 
sns8778 said:
I usually avoid this subject because at one time, I compared it to politics on here - there was a group that loved it and a group that hated it and they seemed to have no interest in a discussion and just argued and insulted each other until most threads about it got deleted.

Some people say they worked great, other people say they didn't work at all and it was like people would argue so hard about whether they work or not, they would miss the simple fact - that ingredients like this are going to work better for some people that others.

That's why I rarely mention CEL Ecdy-Plex - https://competitiveedgelabs.com/product/ecdy-plex/

CEL Ecdy-Plex is a great product and its there for people that want to try it, but I don't ever mention it much because I avoid this subject like the plague because there's been too much arguing over it.

To me, there are several considerations:
  • There are a lot of quality issues with the ingredients and standardizations are all over the place and some brands intentionally test by the wrong method(s) to artificially inflate the purity percentage.
  • These ingredients, even the best quality ones, are going to work better for some people than others.
  • As @mechka_grizli said, by the time that you mega dose some of the ones people were running crazy dosages of, you could use an awesome stack like Anabolic Effect, Anabolic XT, Prime XT, Pepti-Bolic, and Alpha One for less if caught on sale.
Click to expand...

Is ingredient testing involving identification (ID) and TLC only that efficient compared to HPLC?
 
notorius said:
Is ingredient testing involving identification (ID) and TLC only that efficient compared to HPLC?
Click to expand...

Different ingredients and constituents require different testing methods for the best accuracy.

For example, UV testing can test a peak, but if multiple constituents have the same or close to the same peaks, it can cause some confusion - sometimes intentional confusion. There are some herbal brands that intentionally do things that way to inflate their percentages to make them appear higher than they really are.
 
i tried a few bottles of ecdysterone from boldanic years ago and really no results, just some itchy skin from what i can remember. i tried their turkesterone but stopped a few days in. cant remember if it was indigestion or skin issues.. the only plant based sterols that worked for me were transdermal laxogenin from olympus labs and oral laxo from the now defunct brand BPS nutrition. i tried other brands and no results. laxo definitely increased strength for me and muscles were slightly more full
 
i think the mechanism for ecdy was ER beta. i think for laxo it was akt/p13k. i think there was recent studies shows that high dose laxo trans-activates the androgen receptor
 
i tried an oral laxo powder in a foil bag 2 years ago from amazon that was supposed to be high quality but did not notice anything.

real laxo gives me a headache. thats how i know its real.lol,,very scientific :ROFLMAO:
 
lanky said:
i think the mechanism for ecdy was ER beta. i think for laxo it was akt/p13k. i think there was recent studies shows that high dose laxo trans-activates the androgen receptor
Click to expand...
What does it mean to trans activate the androgen receptor?
 
lanky said:
i think the mechanism for ecdy was ER beta. i think for laxo it was akt/p13k. i think there was recent studies shows that high dose laxo trans-activates the androgen receptor
Click to expand...
I would love to see these recent studies/evidence showing high dose laxogenin activates the androgen receptor? The Russians studied Laxogenin extensively (referred to as compounds I - IV). They went out of their way to state there was no androgen receptor activation, as did research done in this country performed at Baylor/Rutgers University. So this new info would be interesting to say the least.

A variety of MOA's have been put forth for ecdysterone (laxogenin is considered an analog). Estrogen receptor Beta, PI3K/AKT activation, lowered myostatin, lowered CK and LDH (markers of muscle damage), increased mRNA translation and more recently, MAS receptor activation* have all been claimed. To be fair though, much of this data used only 20-Hydroxyecdysterone (20-H), just one of 590 ecdysteroids identified to date**.

*https://www.biophytis.com/wp-conten...n-at-SCWD-December-10-11-2016-Dilda-et-al.pdf

***https://ecdybase.org/

To add to the confusion, how the ecdysteroid(s) are administered - seems to matter. For example, oral, sublingual, transdermal and injectable all result in different effects (and yes, I've injected it). It's likely IMO this goes back to not just the parent ecdysteroid(s), but their metabolites as well. In the case of transdermal, it may depend upon various enzymes found in the skin. Enzymes such as 3b HSD and 17a HSD, for example are required to convert DHEA to androstene to androstenediol and ultimately to testosterone. Do they also modulate Ecdy or Laxogenin conversion to other compounds? The honest answer is, we just don't know.

BOTTOM LINE
It's likely Ecdysterone/Laxogenin works through a variety of mechanisms, not all of which have been identified. I personally think it may also exert its effects by being incorporated into the cell membrane. As of yet however, that is pure speculation on my part.

Anyone that tells you they know for certain how it works, is lying to you IMO.
 
Mixelflick said:
I would love to see these recent studies/evidence showing high dose laxogenin activates the androgen receptor? The Russians studied Laxogenin extensively (referred to as compounds I - IV). They went out of their way to state there was no androgen receptor activation, as did research done in this country performed at Baylor/Rutgers University. So this new info would be interesting to say the least.

A variety of MOA's have been put forth for ecdysterone (laxogenin is considered an analog). Estrogen receptor Beta, PI3K/AKT activation, lowered myostatin, lowered CK and LDH (markers of muscle damage), increased mRNA translation and more recently, MAS receptor activation* have all been claimed. To be fair though, much of this data used only 20-Hydroxyecdysterone (20-H), just one of 590 ecdysteroids identified to date**.

*https://www.biophytis.com/wp-conten...n-at-SCWD-December-10-11-2016-Dilda-et-al.pdf

***https://ecdybase.org/

To add to the confusion, how the ecdysteroid(s) are administered - seems to matter. For example, oral, sublingual, transdermal and injectable all result in different effects (and yes, I've injected it). It's likely IMO this goes back to not just the parent ecdysteroid(s), but their metabolites as well. In the case of transdermal, it may depend upon various enzymes found in the skin. Enzymes such as 3b HSD and 17a HSD, for example are required to convert DHEA to androstene to androstenediol and ultimately to testosterone. Do they also modulate Ecdy or Laxogenin conversion to other compounds? The honest answer is, we just don't know.

BOTTOM LINE
It's likely Ecdysterone/Laxogenin works through a variety of mechanisms, not all of which have been identified. I personally think it may also exert its effects by being incorporated into the cell membrane. As of yet however, that is pure speculation on my part.

Anyone that tells you they know for certain how it works, is lying to you IMO.
Click to expand...
@Mixelflick what are your thoughts on this?, https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/12/1/206
 
THEstudent said:
@Mixelflick what are your thoughts on this?, https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/12/1/206
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link/study. I'm not certain I had seen it prior. Off the cuff, I'm not surprised.

"TEAD was analyzed and standardized utilizing UPLC-PDA-ESI–MS/MS and UPLC-PDA-UV techniques, resulting in tentative identification of fifty compounds including polyphenols, steroids and triterpenoids"

I have long maintained that a full spectrum extract is superior in almost every way, to isolated/individual ecdysterones. In my case, I referenced (and use) Rhaponticum Carthamoides but this is a similar situation - just with a different source genus. Note also the focus on metabolites, which is a quasi-admission they likely have biological activity.

This is also a great example of why the current Turkesterone craze is at best IMO, misguided. In fact the best- selling "social media" Turk has slowly morphed to include Rhaponticum (and another source genus) with a wide spectrum of Ecdysteroids. People are slowly realizing, nature rarely screws up. There is usually a reason(s) for the other compounds contained therein.

EDIT: Here again, this study confirms the absence of androgen receptor binding. The focus on 20-H isn't surprising (given its widespread use in other studies), but a tad disappointing IMO. There are many, many other ecdysteroids that have a broad range of biological activity. Even BioPhytis admits in their research that 20-H likely isn't the "best" ecdysteroid for the job in most cases. It's more an issue of its widespread availability, and more is known about it vs. others.

In summary, this is just more evidence for what I've been saying for years (actually, decades). But I am dating myself. Most of you guys are my son's age.. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna try the HTLT turk, not the platinum one because financial reasons.. want to also try an ecdy supp with it. I just don't trust turk from anyone else. Within the past 2 years I've made more natty gains than ever (just creatine, not even whey protein), even compared to when I took PHs. I feel like turk and ecdy is better to try at this point than anything that requires a pct.

I'll report a log, as most people here take other stuff and their experience might be... skewed.
 
Mixelflick said:
Thank you for the link/study. I'm not certain I had seen it prior. Off the cuff, I'm not surprised.

"TEAD was analyzed and standardized utilizing UPLC-PDA-ESI–MS/MS and UPLC-PDA-UV techniques, resulting in tentative identification of fifty compounds including polyphenols, steroids and triterpenoids"

I have long maintained that a full spectrum extract is superior in almost every way, to isolated/individual ecdysterones. In my case, I referenced (and use) Rhaponticum Carthamoides but this is a similar situation - just with a different source genus. Note also the focus on metabolites, which is a quasi-admission they likely have biological activity.

This is also a great example of why the current Turkesterone craze is at best IMO, misguided. In fact the best- selling "social media" Turk has slowly morphed to include Rhaponticum (and another source genus) with a wide spectrum of Ecdysteroids. People are slowly realizing, nature rarely screws up. There is usually a reason(s) for the other compounds contained therein.

EDIT: Here again, this study confirms the absence of androgen receptor binding. The focus on 20-H isn't surprising (given its widespread use in other studies), but a tad disappointing IMO. There are many, many other ecdysteroids that have a broad range of biological activity. Even BioPhytis admits in their research that 20-H likely isn't the "best" ecdysteroid for the job in most cases. It's more an issue of its widespread availability, and more is known about it vs. others.

In summary, this is just more evidence for what I've been saying for years (actually, decades). But I am dating myself. Most of you guys are my son's age.. :)
Click to expand...
Wholly smokes i didn't realize you been on this forum this long. I don't remember to much of your posting. I've been here some time too
 
cronikgains said:
I'm gonna try the HTLT turk, not the platinum one because financial reasons.. want to also try an ecdy supp with it. I just don't trust turk from anyone else. Within the past 2 years I've made more natty gains than ever (just creatine, not even whey protein), even compared to when I took PHs. I feel like turk and ecdy is better to try at this point than anything that requires a pct.

I'll report a log, as most people here take other stuff and their experience might be... skewed.
Click to expand...
Tonvara’s Turk is the real deal as well
 
Turk/Ecdy wont do much for anyone as it relates to muscle-size and strength...
---
That's why it comes and goes every decade since I've been training (1978).
Very expensive piss...
 
Shadowblaze said:
Wtf he has been on here longer than I have been alive
Click to expand...
Look at it like this: I've been around long enough to see what supps stand the test of time. In that regard, I hope my posts help some folks here save their money but more importantly - their time.

You can always make more $, but time is the one thing you can't get back.

If you really, really love strength training (like I do), you're going to want to be doing this into your 40's, 50's and beyond. And by "doing this", I'm not talking about patty-cake workouts and telling fairy tales about how you benched 500lbs "back in the day". Nobody cares about what you did yesterday. I'm talking about performing at a very high level TODAY.

That means staying healthy (inside and out). Because I can't imagine any greater hell than wanting to train/gain but being so fragile, injured etc. - you can't. I'm 55 and still hitting PR's. In some cases, I can do things now I wasn't able to do in my 20's.

Ecdy happens to be one of the things, that's helped make that possible.
 
Mixelflick said:
Look at it like this: I've been around long enough to see what supps stand the test of time. In that regard, I hope my posts help some folks here save their money but more importantly - their time.

You can always make more $, but time is the one thing you can't get back.

If you really, really love strength training (like I do), you're going to want to be doing this into your 40's, 50's and beyond. And by "doing this", I'm not talking about patty-cake workouts and telling fairy tales about how you benched 500lbs "back in the day". Nobody cares about what you did yesterday. I'm talking about performing at a very high level TODAY.

That means staying healthy (inside and out). Because I can't imagine any greater hell than wanting to train/gain but being so fragile, injured etc. - you can't. I'm 55 and still hitting PR's. In some cases, I can do things now I wasn't able to do in my 20's.

Ecdy happens to be one of the things, that's helped make that possible.
Click to expand...
Rob, I miss you and Carl greatly when you were with him on SHR...
I hope all is well with you, your son, etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top