Indy Week | Comment Archives | Stories | Blogs

Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: Stories: Blogs

Re: “Muslim Raleigh City Council Candidate Zainab Baloch Says Defacement of Her Sign Won't Stop Her Campaign

Linzie, a quick correction. In your first sentence you mispelled "love" as "hate" and "racist" as "realist."

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by vidvis on 10/11/2017 at 7:46 AM

Re: “Muslim Raleigh City Council Candidate Zainab Baloch Says Defacement of Her Sign Won't Stop Her Campaign

Correction: I mistakenly attributed to Paul Blest the statement made by Linzie Washington about the defacement of Ms. Baloch's sign.
My apologies to Paul.
The questions in that post now go to Linzie Washington.

Posted by ThomasG on 10/11/2017 at 12:12 AM

Re: “Muslim Raleigh City Council Candidate Zainab Baloch Says Defacement of Her Sign Won't Stop Her Campaign

Mr. Blest,
Do you have reliable data that backs up your claim that "the majority of these types of cases usually end up to be self inflicted to further an agenda"?
Are you aware of any such incident in the Triangle?
I'm aware that there have been such cases, but it's extremely irresponsible to make such a claim unless you have verifiable proof. The reason the fake hate crimes get wide publicity is that they are rare.
Tommy Goldsmith

Posted by ThomasG on 10/10/2017 at 6:43 PM

Re: “Muslim Raleigh City Council Candidate Zainab Baloch Says Defacement of Her Sign Won't Stop Her Campaign

Somehow, I don't think that jumping to the conclusion that a Muslim woman made up a hate crime out of thin air is being a "realist."

7 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Paul Blest on 10/10/2017 at 12:49 PM

Re: “Muslim Raleigh City Council Candidate Zainab Baloch Says Defacement of Her Sign Won't Stop Her Campaign

Hate to be a realist, but this will probably end up being a political stunt that was done by her own campaign. The majority of these types of cases usually end up to be self inflicted to further an agenda.

1 like, 9 dislikes
Posted by Linzie Washington on 10/10/2017 at 12:36 PM

Re: “Heading to Biff Rose Tonight? You Might Want to Check His Website.

Too bad! You don't know who you are talking about. People these days have become so judgmental and eager to be offended, and anything that challenges complacency is viewed with suspicion. Biff is not racist and doesn't hate anybody, certainly not Jewish people. Although he is clearly not a fan of bullies. Like Mel Brooks recently said, it's a hard time for comedy. People are increasingly unable to laugh at themselves... this is a sad commentary on the situation of free speech, when the people who probably think of themselves as progressive or liberal actually behave just like the so-called Moral Majority, and censor somebody's performance without even finding out first what it actually is! Shame on you sanctimonious cowards!

1 like, 4 dislikes
Posted by Jennifer Pendur on 10/10/2017 at 5:37 AM

Re: “Should a Planned City Development at Durham Station Have All Affordable Housing?

Once again, Steve Schewel shows why he should be Durham's next mayor:

"After the meeting, council members Charlie Reece, Jillian Johnson, and Steve Schewel said they preferred that plan (shown above) because it delivers what the community wantsaffordable housingat the lowest cost to the city. "

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Durham451 on 10/08/2017 at 12:47 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

Thegoldenrule Again, you provide nothing but a deceitful, unsupportable opinion regarding the classification of drinking water fluoridation as a form of medication. Fluoridation, like disinfection, is a water treatment process.

Disinfectants are added to water in an effort to help prevent diseases and protect health. Fluoride ions are added in an effort to reduce tooth decay (a chronic disease) and protect health. In fact, one of the actions of fluoride ions, like disinfectants is to reduce the ability of cariogenic bacteria to cause tooth decay. Think carefully about your posting-name you seem willing to risk the health of community members to satisfy your own unsupportable passionate opinions. Read and try to understand all the available evidence, not just what you find on anti-F propaganda pages.

"Although dental caries are largely preventable, they remain the most common chronic disease of children aged 6 to 11 years and adolescents aged 12 to 19 years."
www.cdc.gov/healthywater/hygiene/disease/dental_caries.html

Read the 2016 World Health Organization report, Fluoride and Oral Health, to obtain some badly needed information about fluoridation you seem to be lacking.
Relevant Conclusions:
> Fluoride is effective at controlling caries because it acts in several different ways. When present in dental plaque and saliva, it delays the demineralization and promotes the remineralization of incipient enamel lesions, a healing process before cavities become established. Fluoride also interferes with glycolysis, the process by which cariogenic bacteria metabolize sugars to produce acid. In higher concentrations, it has a bactericidal action on cariogenic and other bacteria. Studies suggest that, when fluoride is ingested during the period of tooth development, it makes teeth more resistant to subsequent caries development. Fluoridated water also has a significant topical effect in addition to its systemic effect (Hardwick et al., 1982). It is well known that salivary and plaque fluoride (F) concentrations are directly related to the F concentration in drinking water. This versatility of action adds to fluorides value in caries prevention. Aiding remineralization is likely to be fluorides most important action

You continue to provide nothing but unsupportable opinions that fluoridation is a form of medication what you provided is the anti-F spin which uses definitions of drugs which do not apply to optimally fluoridated water.

Your FD&C act definition of a drug does not apply to fluoridated water as evidenced by the fact that the FDA regulates fluoridated water (natural or added) as a Food for Human Consumption Not A Drug. Check your references a little more closely. Also, check the level of fluoride ions allowed by the FDA in this Food for Human Consumption

As pointed out elsewhere, there is a rather significant difference -- which fluoridation opponents (FOs) cant seem to comprehend -- between fluoridated toothpaste and rinses which ARE regulated, not as food, but as Anticaries Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use. Fluoridated drugs for human consumption are sold in concentrated form and have concentrations of fluoride ions more than a thousand times greater than found in a liter of fluoridated water.

It is remarkable that only FOs seem incapable of understanding what seems to be an extremely obviously difference. Rational people understand that there is a rather significant difference between a liter bottle of fluoridated rinse which contains about 429 mg fluoride ions and a liter of water which contains 0.7 mg fluoride ions FOs disingenuously try and make the potential exposure levels equivalent to scare the public into believing their fear-laced propaganda.
https://www.drugs.com/pro/neutral-sodium-fluoride-rinse.html

The fact that the level of fluoride ions in optimally fluoridated water is so low is the reason the dose can be controlled. In order to ingest a harmful amount of fluoride ions, someone would need to ingest harmful levels of water, and the levels of other chemicals of water, like disinfection byproducts, would also be higher than reasonable levels.

Toothpaste & Rinses:
TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER D--DRUGS FOR HUMAN USE
PART 355: ANTICARIES DRUG PRODUCTS FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER HUMAN USE
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?cfrpart=355&showfr=1

Bottles water that can contain fluoride ions:
TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER B--FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
PART 165 -- BEVERAGES
Subpart B--Requirements for Specific Standardized Beverages
Sec. 165.110 Bottled water.
Fluoride may be optionally added within the limitations established in 165.110(b)(4)(ii).
(ii)(A) Bottled water packaged in the United States to which no fluoride is added shall not contain fluoride in excess of the levels in Table 1 [1.4 mg/l - 2.4 mg/lm] and these levels shall be based on the annual average of maximum daily air temperatures at the location where the bottled water is sold at retail.
(ii)(C) Bottled water packaged in the United States to which fluoride is added shall not contain fluoride in excess of levels in Table 2 [0.8 mg/l 1.7 mg/l] and these levels shall be based on the annual average of maximum daily air temperatures at the location where the bottled water is sold at retail.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=165.110

Posted by Randy Johnson on 10/06/2017 at 11:55 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

THEGOLDENRULE


1. Correct. OWASA has no authority to medicate the water supply with a drug. However this is a discussion on water fluoridation, which involves no drugs.

Lets stay on topic here....okay?

2. Based on your comment, the only intelligence in question here, is yours.

3. OWASA did not cost the community anything. It simply dealt with a 40 year old pipe problem, promptly and efficiently.......exactly as it is supposed to do.

4. Readers are certainly free to determine whom they should trust......an uninformed online commenter who hides behind the pseudonym The Goldenrule, or to Timothy Wright, Rebecca King, Steve Slott, and Gary Slade, a group of highly respected researchers, public health personnel, UNC faculty members, and a general dentist from Burlington.

5. Neither OWASA, nor any other local officials are required to obtain informed consent prior to approving the concentration of existing minerals in water supplies under their jurisdiction. Consent for these officials to do their jobs is conveyed upon their election/appointment to office.

6. Given that there are no controlled substances, medical treatment, or pharmaceuticals involved in fluoridation, there are obviously no violations of NC general statutes on controlled substances, pharmacy and medical malpractice laws / best practice.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Steven Slott on 10/06/2017 at 11:26 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

@Randy Johnson

Fluoride is added to the Chapel Hill / Carrboro public water supply by the majority vote of an unelected ad-hoc committee within a non-profit organization (the Orange Water and Sewer Authority board of directors, hereafter OWASA).
OWASA physically adds fluoride to the water in order to increase the level of this chemical in the water which reaches the population.
OWASA advertises that their water is of sufficient quality to ingest and expect that citizens will do so to survive. They publicly tout the benefits of their fluoridation policy as a preventative medical intervention. They recently RE announced their intention to do so.

The stated intended purpose of fluoride addition to the water is solely admitted to be in an effort to help prevent tooth decay by the ingestion of the substance:

"In accordance with recommendations by theUS Centers for Disease Control,American Dental Association,Orange County Board of Healthand other organizations, OWASA adds fluoride to drinking water to help prevent tooth decay."

For more see: http://www.owasa.org/fluoridating-water-to-help-prevent-tooth-decay

The federal law, FD&C Act, defines drugs, in part, by their intended use, as "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals" [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].

For more see: https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/guidanceregulation/lawsregulations/ucm074201.htm

Additionally, we note that state law defining Drugs in North Carolina is congruent with the FD&C Act;

North Carolina Controlled Substances Act Article 5 90-87. Definitions. (12)
"Drug" means:

a. substances recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;
b. substances intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals;

See also 90-87 (1) definition of Administer under which ingestion is included.http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_90/Article_5.html


Tooth decay also known as dental caries is a form of oral disease.

See: http://www.ada.org/en/press-room/news-releases/2015-archive/may/new-cdc-data-on-adult-cavities


Fluoride is a prescription drug. Some of the forms of fluoride are listed under the following drug names ReNaF, and Ludent. These all have National Drug Code Numbers.

Fluoride has also been prescribed as a drug to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland. Up through the 1950s, doctors in Europe and South America prescribed fluoride to reduce thyroid function in patients with over-active thyroids (hyperthyroidism).

(See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/merck-1968.pdf).

Doctors selected fluoride as a thyroid suppressant based on findings linking fluoride togoitre, and, as predicted, fluoride therapy did reduce thyroid activity in the treated patients. (McClaren 1969; Galletti 1958; May 1937). Moreover, according toclinical research (http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/galletti-1958.pdf),the fluoride dose capable of reducing thyroid function was notably low just 2 to 5 mg per day over several months. (Galletti & Joyet 1958).This dose is well within the range (1.6 to 6.6 mg/day)of what individuals living in fluoridated communities are now estimated to receive on a regular basis. (DHHS 1991).

OWASA states their water contains on average .17 mg of fluoride for every 8 oz glass of water, but OWASA can not control how much water a person will consume. (http://www.owasa.org/questions-and-answers-about-fluoridation#FL_in_8_oz_glass)

In addition to ingested water, the population also cooks, bathes, and swim in the water. These are supposed to be normal and implied functions of a PUBLIC UTILITY, not a delivery system for medicine. Dosage for any medicine also needs to consider a patients weight, so it is an axiomatic conclusion that some percentage of the population will get greater than or equal to the amount of fluoride required to act as a thyroid suppressant. This is well documented in the peer reviewed literature, but i'm sure you will predictably pretend that it isn't.

OWASA has been put on notice of this fact as early as 2012-2013, but have never even acknowledged the overwhelming evidence of suppressive impact on the thyroid function (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPXDoiZuKEI)


It is self evident from the objective observation of the juxtaposition of the FDAs/NCGS definition of a drug with OWASAs intent to fluoridate the water supply that; OWASA is administering a drug through the water supply under federal and state law.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by thegloldenrule on 10/06/2017 at 9:21 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

jackincarr and thegloldenrule There is no evidence or court decision or anything else besides the opinions of fluoridation opponents that classifies drinking water fluoridation as a form of medication. If you have legitimate evidence to the contrary, provide it.

There is no informed consent required for a drinking water treatment method any more than individual informed consent is required for everyone to drink disinfectants, disinfection byproducts or any of the other chemicals in treated public water.

If a person has a problem with ingesting any chemicals in their water they are free to find another water source or take measures to remove those contaminants. It is irresponsible to demand that any treatment method they disagree with should be banned.

Posted by Randy Johnson on 10/06/2017 at 9:12 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

OWASA has no authority to medicate the water supply with a drug. If you get to know them, you realize they also couldn't possibly have the intelligence to do it soundly, either...The millions of dollars they cost the community with the water disaster, and their reaction to it (to spend more money fluoridating), is prima facie evidence of that. To say nothing of their well known intransigence going back at least to 2012. Contrary to what the propagandists Timothy Wright, Rebecca King, Steve Slott, Gary Slade, and many others say... It is a breach of informed consent, the NC general statutes on controlled substances, pharmacy and medical malpractice laws / best practice, and basic common sense. I would bet money It won't be long after OWASA turns the fluoride back on that another "overfluoridation" event accidentally happens and more damage is done.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by thegloldenrule on 10/06/2017 at 8:52 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

Jackincarr

1. Fluoride is not a compound. It is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. This ion has existed in water since the beginning of time.

2. Humans have been ingesting fluoride in water since the beginning of time. During the entire 72 year history of fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated, is in any manner dangerous to anyone.

3. Local officials are not required to obtain your consent in order to approve the concentration level of existing minerals in public water systems under their jurisdiction. Consent for them to do their jobs is conveyed via their election/appointment to office.

4. Fluoride at the optimal level in water is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and causes no adverse effects. However, if you have a phobia of such water, you are certainly free to obtain your own water from a source with a content more to your personal preferences. No will force you to consume fluoridated water.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Steven Slott on 10/06/2017 at 3:32 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

Thanks for the coverage on this. To me, it's all about the fact that we are being dosed with a dangerous compound against our will. It's as simple as that. I do not consent for OWASA to drug me.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by jackincarr on 10/06/2017 at 2:54 PM

Re: “Muslim Raleigh City Council Candidate Zainab Baloch Says Defacement of Her Sign Won't Stop Her Campaign

Show your rejection of this hate and VOTE for Zainab!

32 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Apache101 on 10/06/2017 at 2:14 PM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

K Spencer

In regard to your recommendation to read intormation from the IAOMT:

"The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo.[1] They were responsible for the "smoking tooth" video that frequently gets passed around in altie circles. Their main issue is mercury amalgam fillings, which they claim can cause all sorts of neurological illnesses such as Parkinson's and autism. They sell filling removal kits for "dentists" along with various other nature woo, mostly vitamin supplements. The organization also opposes water fluoridation, claims to put out peer-reviewed "research," and supports "health freedom."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Academy_of_Oral_Medicine_and_Toxicology

Rather than wasting time perusing nonsense posted on activist websites which answer to no one but themselves, readers would be far better served by obtaining accurate information on fluoridation from respected, reliable sources. The websites of the CDC, the EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of such information readily available to anyone.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Steven Slott on 10/06/2017 at 7:48 AM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

K Spencer

1. As usual, you cite studies you have not read, much less understood.

The study you reference is that of Bashash, et al., Utilizing data on urinary fluoride content in pregnant women living in non-fluoridated Mexico, researchers studied the effects on children from prenatal exposure to high levels of fluoride. At this point, this study has no applicability to optimally fluoridated water in the US.

The limitations clearly stated in the study include:

A. A lack of data on urinary fluoride content of pregnant women living in fluoridated areas of the United States. Fluoridation opponents seek to do what the authors, themselves, did not do....compare urinary fluoride content of one population with non-existent data of another.

Finally, our ability to extrapolate our results to how exposures may impact on the general population is limited given the lack of data on fluoride pharmacokinetics during pregnancy. There are no reference values for urinary fluoride in pregnant women in the United States

B. Insufficient information to rule out significant confounders.

Nevertheless, it is not possible to entirely rule out residual confounding or in the population as a whole (that might have been detected had we had full data on larger sample sizes) or bias (should the subpopulations that had the data for analysis have a different fluoridecognition relationship than those participants who were excluded from the analyses).

C. There was no significant effect noted by fluoride exposure on children after birth.

Finally, in models that focused on the cross-sectional relationship between childrens exposure to fluoride (reflected by their specific gravityadjusted urinary fluoride levels) and IQ score and that contained the main covariates of interest, there was not a clear, statistically significant association between contemporaneous childrens urinary fluoride (CUFsg) and IQ either unadjusted or adjusting for MUFcr.

D. Evidence suggested that IQ effects were noted only with prenatal urinary content above 0.8 mg/L.

The associations with GCI appeared to be linear across the range of prenatal exposures, but there was some evidence that associations with IQ may have been limited to exposures above 0.8 mg/L.

E. Results would need to be replicated by independent researchers.

Our findings must be confirmed in other study populations, and additional research is needed to determine how the urine fluoride concentrations measured in our study population are related to fluoride exposures resulting from both intentional supplementation and environmental contamination.

F. Other limitations include the lack of information about iodine in salt, which could modify associations between fluoride and cognition; the lack of data on fluoride content in water given that determination of fluoride content is not reported as part of the water quality monitoring programs in Mexico; and the lack of information on other environmental neurotoxicants such as arsenic.

G. Bashash, et al., utilized the spot collection method of urine collection, rater than the more
accurate 24 hour method.

As noted by Deena Thomas, second author of Bashash, et al:

The spot urine samples we measured cannot account for diurnal variations in urinary fluoride. Previous studies report fluctuations in concentration by time-of-day. 42 which means that the fluoride levels in our samples could be influenced by the time-of-collection or by diet.

Additionally, in her doctoral thesis, Deena Thomas, using the exact data as did Bashash, reported on the effects of prenatal fluoride on children aged 1, 2, and 3. She found no significant effect on these children. Bashash, chose to omit these findings, and instead began their IQ assessment in children 4 years of age.

Obviously, Bashash, et al. had the same data as did Thomas, so why did they omit any reference to children below the age of 4? Too, that Bashash, et al. oddly reported on children 4 years of age and those 6-12 years, begs the question as to why they omitted data from age 5 from their report. Was there insufficient data on that age group, or did that group show no, or positive, impact om neurodevelopment, which would have knocked a hole in their linear progression ?

From Thomas dissertation:

Conclusions: This analysis suggests that maternal intake of fluoride during pregnancy does not have a strong impact on offspring cognitive development in the first three years of life.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Steven Slott on 10/06/2017 at 7:36 AM

Re: “Sorry Anti-Fluoride Folks, OWASA Will Resume Fluoridation Next Week

James Reeves - You posted this same comment to an article about the renewal of fluoridation in yesterday's Indy Week. It is still as inaccurate today as it was yesterday.

K Spencer - The OWASA board actually read, understood and acted on legitimate scientific evidence instead of the fear-laced, unsupportable propaganda submitted by fluoridation opponents.

Have you actually read the Hu, et al. IQ study you claim to cite? Like all other such studies used by fluoridation opponents in their attempt to prove drinking optimally fluoridated water causes serious health problems, this one came up with a possible correlation which is nowhere near proof of anything. Like all other such studies, if you had actually read or understood the paper, you would have seen the lack of adjustment for the perhaps dozens of other possible risk factors which might influence IQ like lead, mercury or arsenic levels which were not available for most participants.

Did you read the five paragraphs that described the rather significant limitations of their study? The authors conclusion was that their study might have demonstrated excessive levels of fluoride exposure were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at 4 and 612 y old That is not even remotely close to demonstrating a cause and effect relationship.

Already criticisms of this most recent study and examples of the anti-F misuse of the actual conclusions have been published.
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/fluoride-pregnancy-and-the-iq-of-offspring/ - Ken Perrott seems to have done an excellent preliminary analysis of the study.
http://nationalpost.com/health/researchers-urge-caution-over-study-linking-fluoride-exposure-in-pregnancy-to-lower-iqs-in-children

Nys Cof brought up the IAOM position paper in a comment to the fluoridation article. The IAOM is a fringe group of dentists that has increased their bottom line by advocating the removal of durable, long-lasting amalgam fillings by employing the same types of scare tactics used in the campaign against fluoridation frighten the public into bypassing critical thinking so they will believe your scam. Unfortunately irrational, unjustifiable fear sells a product or idea far more effectively than a careful consideration of all the facts and evidence.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Randy Johnson on 10/06/2017 at 1:13 AM

Re: “Heading to Biff Rose Tonight? You Might Want to Check His Website.

Biff Rose is a sad old bore.

Thank you for protecting people from him.

Just kidding, he is a sad old bore but I prefer him to your dumb fucking internet shaming and manufactured outrage.

Please remove the word "Indy" from your name.

You obviously specialize in Orwellian groupthink and newspeak.

You suck more than Biff Rose.

5 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Merkley on 10/05/2017 at 11:34 PM

Re: “Durham City Council Votes to Provide Grants to Some Southside Residents Struggling with Property Tax Bills

Loan Offer Alert For Everyone! Are you financially down and you need an urgent credit/financial assistance? Or are you in need of a loan to start-up/increase your business or buy your dream house. We offer all kind of funding at a very low interest rate of 3% with reliable terms and condition. For more info Contact Email: rogerwalkerloans@gmail.com with the amount you need as a loan and the loan amount duration.

Contact Email: rogerwalkerloans@gmail.com

Posted by Roger Walker on 10/05/2017 at 8:35 PM

Our Guides

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation