Gluten-free skin and beauty products: Extracting cash from the gullible

26

Even though yesterday was Easter, and, as unreligious as I am, I was still thinking of taking it easy, there was one target that popped up that I just couldn’t resist. My wife and I were sitting around yesterday reading the Sunday papers and perusing the Internet (as is frequently our wont on Sunday mornings), when I heard a contemptuous harrumph coming from her direction. She then pointed me to an article in our local newspaper entitled Gluten-free beauty products in demand among some customers.

Now, I must admit that I haven’t been keeping up with the gluten-free trend, other than how easily it fits within the niche of “autism biomed” quackery, where, apparently, nearly every “biomed” protocol for autistic children demands that gluten be stripped completely from their diets, lest the evil molecule continue to infect them with the dreaded autism. I’ve kept an eye the literature, but haven’t really written about gluten. That’s why I could immediately tell why my wife had called my attention to the article:

Amy Soergel’s lip gloss was making her sick. The problem, she realized, was gluten — hydrologized wheat protein, to be exact. Then she went to the hairdresser who used a shampoo that made her neck burn. Again, it contained gluten.

“There’s hidden gluten in many places you may not consider,” including stamp and envelope glues, toothpaste and lip balms, said Soergel, who has a store, Naturally Soergel’s, near Pittsburgh that caters to people with allergies. Indeed, for people with celiac disease, a bit of gluten that might get swallowed from a lipstick or a stream of shampoo in the shower can be enough to cause illness.

A slew of gluten-free skin care products have come on the market, including items from well-known companies such as Murad, Dr. Hauschka, EO, MyChelle, Suntegrity, Acure and derma-e. Many are sold in Whole Foods and other health food stores. If they’ve been certified by a third-party agency, an icon usually appears on the packaging.

Whole Foods. Of course, it had to be Whole Foods (among others). Let’s take a look at the whole gluten-free movement and then at the end I’ll revisit the question of gluten-free cosmetics and skin products.



Gluten, of course, is nothing more than proteins found in wheat endosperm (a type of tissue produced in seeds and that is ground to produce flour) and can also be found in barley and rye. It consists of two proteins, gliadin (a prolamin protein) and glutenin (a glutelin protein). Gluten cannot be consumed by sufferers of celiac disease (CD), whose main manifestation is inflammation of the bowel lining when gluten is eaten. The end result of this chronic inflammatory process can be gastrointestinal scarring and atrophy of the villi (the finger-like protrusions of the lining of the bowel responsible for nutrient absorption, among other things). The most common symptoms are, of course, gastrointestinal, including diarrhea, nausea, abdominal pain, and bloating, but CD can also manifest itself in a number of other symptomsincluding skin rashes, weight loss and fatigue, oral ulcers, joint pain, anemia, and depression. CD (or gluten-sensitive enteropathy) is not caused by gluten, but rather a genetic predisposition. If you’re unlucky enough to have this predisposition, gluten can do bad things to you.

There is no doubt that CD can cause real problems in the people who have true gluten sensitivity. Indeed, as this New York Times article describes, in the 1990s the general medical consensus was that in the US the prevalence of CD was around 1 in 10,000. More recent studies, such as this one from 2012, report a prevalence of around 1 in 100. Worse, the majority of CD goes undiagnosed. In actuality, what is happening appears to be a combination of more intensive screening due to better awareness of celiac disease as a potential cause of puzzling symptom constellations, plus what is arguably a real increase in prevalence since 1950, estimated by Mayo Clinic researchers to be approximately four-fold and continuing to increase over the last decade.

The definitive diagnosis of CD is made by:

  • Detection of anti-gluten antibodies in the blood (specifically, as Scott Gavuradescribed, IgA antiendomysial antibody (EMA) and the IgA tTGA), a test that is 90-95% sensitive and 95% specific. This is suggestive of gluten-sensitive enteropathy but not fully diagnostic.
  • The gold standard test: Distal duodenal biopsy specimens demonstrating characteristic histologic changes in the small intestinal mucosa, changes that include: a spectrum from total to partial villous atrophy and crypt lengthening with an increase in lamina propria and intraepithelial lymphocytes. It is also important to take at least six biopsies, because changes can be patchy.

It’s also noted in multiple sources that these tests should in general be done before the patient is placed on a gluten-free diet, because otherwise the tests often produce a false-negative result. There is also a controversial condition known as “non-celiac gluten sensitivity” (NCGS). As both Steve Novella and Scott Gavura note, these are patients without definitive diagnostic criteria for CD who believe that gluten causes symptoms of bloating, fatigue, and irritable bowel syndrome, but do not have antibodies to gliadin. Indeed, Scott quite correctly speculated over whether non-celiac gluten sensitivity is becoming the new Candida; i.e., an all-purpose bogeyman responsible for all sorts of vague, chronic health complaints and thus a nice foundation upon which quacks can base all sorts of dubious therapies related to removing gluten from the diets of anyone with vague complaints but no evidence of CD on testing.

Scott also noted the dearth of good studies on NCGS, and a review of PubMed just yesterday found that, although there are about 27 more articles out there in PubMed than there were when Scott last wrote about NCGS, the quality of evidence supporting the existence of the entity of NCGS remains poor. For example, in 2013, Biesiekierski et al.reported a placebo-controlled, cross-over rechallenge study of 37 subjects, in which they found no evidence of specific or dose-dependent effects of gluten in patients with NCGS placed on diets low in fermentable, oligo-, di-, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) in order to control other potential triggers of gut symptoms. No markers of intestinal injury were noted in any of the groups, although a high nocebo response was noted. It’s not surprising that a recent review article characterized NCGS as “an entity awaiting validation, better diagnostic criteria, and, if it does exist, pathogenic mechanisms.” It was also noted that the “reluctance to acknowledge other components of wheat, such as fructans, non-gluten proteins and WGA, as potential pathogenic factors has often hampered good interpretation of clinical observations.” In other words, people are so fixated on gluten that they ignore other potential components of wheat and grains that might be the real cause of symptoms noted. The authors of the review article even go so far as to propose reasonable rules for future rigorous clinical trials on the subject:

Essential rules for future studies should include the following. First, celiac disease has to be seriously excluded by HLA studies and/or strict histological and immunological criteria. The inclusion of patients with intraepithelial lymphocytosis will always raise the issue of whether they really have celiac disease with a milder intestinal lesion. Secondly, the use of blinded placebo-controlled food re-challenge methodology to prove gluten sensitivity is present is not reliable, especially in patients who believe they have NCGS. Perhaps the selection of patients for study should be those with IBS naïve to a GFD. Thirdly, the trap of assuming that response to a GFD or exacerbation of symptoms due to a gluten-containing diet reflects specific effects of gluten should be outlawed and credence be given to the other wheat-related food constituents that can also cause gastrointestinal symptoms. Perhaps if these rules were followed, we would now be a lot closer to defining mechanisms by which gluten might act, might have developed biomarkers to identify patients who truly do have NCGS and perhaps, most importantly, answered the question of whether NCGS does really exist. On current evidence the existence of the entity of NCGS remains unsubstantiated.

So, in other words, CD is a real entity that is more common that diagnosed, but it is not even clear whether NCGS is a distinct clinical entity, despite the number of people who believe themselves to have it, the number of companies that cater to the belief that this entity exists, and the number of practitioners, particularly “integrative” practitioners and alternative practitioners, who have come up with all sorts of exclusionary diets and “biomedical” interventions to treat it. As yet, we do not have convincing, reproducible clinical evidence that the condition exists, which makes it premature to be speculating about mechanisms, no matter how much advocates of gluten-free diets as a cure-all for everything might “draw a line in the sand” and try to dismiss skeptics who don’t cite the biomarker studies they like as they promote dubious “paleo” diets. Does any of this mean that NCGS doesn’t exist or is bogus? No, not necessarily. What it means is that evidence is inconclusive and contradictory. Worse, because of relentless messaging in popular culture that gluten is bad for you, that many—who knows how many?—people have undiagnosed gluten sensitivities, and that most people would be better off without gluten in their diets, there’s a substantial nocebo effect.

Written By: David Gorski
continue to source article at sciencebasedmedicine.org

26 COMMENTS

    • In reply to #1 by Neodarwinian:

      Along the lines of food grade hydrogen peroxide and just as looney.

      ( excepting celiacs of course )

      I scratched my head about this as peroxide is not a general household product in the UK but, knowing it’s a sterilising agent, I thought surely it just means it’s made up in potable water? Then I saw the reviews on Amazon UK… Yikes. Thanks for the heads up on another subject of woo!

    • In reply to #1 by Neodarwinian:

      Along the lines of food grade hydrogen peroxide and just as looney.

      ( excepting celiacs of course )

      Ah, but hydrogen peroxide 6% solution is excellent for removing red wine stains from carpets; even plain light beige ones.

      • In reply to #8 by Stafford Gordon:

        In reply to #1 by Neodarwinian:

        Along the lines of food grade hydrogen peroxide and just as looney.

        ( excepting celiacs of course )

        Not wine stains on the inside of your body!

        Ah, but hydrogen peroxide 6% solution is excellent for removing red wine stains from carpets; even plain light beige ones.

  1. My wife is a celiac and benefits significantly from the fad of Gluten Free food! Yippee for her however much of the market is unregulated so Gluten Free is as reliable as hypoallergenic…

    We have a number of friends who have kindly volunteered to support celiacs disease by not eating it for no good reason but they’re also the fish eating veterinarians too so no surprise. And the unregulated supplements crowd too.

    • In reply to #2 by alaskansee:

      My wife is a celiac and benefits significantly from the fad of Gluten Free food! Yippee for her however much of the market is unregulated so Gluten Free is as reliable as hypoallergenic…

      We have a number of friends who have kindly volunteered to support celiacs disease by not eating it for no goo…

      I don’t follow this stuff very closely but my impression is that the “gluten free” foods, like “fat free” or “sugar free” fall in two categories. On the one hand you have the stuff that you would never expect to have gluten (or fat or sugar) in it anyway and it’s just being branded as gluten free because that is the latest fad. On the other hand you have things that you would expect to have gluten (or sugar or fat) and instead the gluten has been replaced by some chemical concoction that most likely is equally or more harmful over the long term than some wheat.

  2. It is frequently asserted by the gluten faddists that the increase in gluten sensitivity is due to modern varieties of wheat that have been bred to yield higher gluten content. This ignores the fact that high gluten (strong) flours are used only in bread, and these have been around since the Prairies started producing hard spring wheat varieties.
    Cakes, cookies/biscuits and pastries have always used low gluten (soft) flours.
    Try making a cake or pastry with bread flour! It’ll be as tough as old boots!

    • In reply to #7 by Stafford Gordon:

      Speaking out against this sort of tripe, is, as Basil Faulty might say, “Stating the bleeding obvious.”

      Assuredly… for people with a scientific education or a people with a basic understanding of science and critical thinking. But for people not armed with these academic and intellectual tools, the argument from authority (Dr. Oz said it so it must be true) and confirmation bias is quite effective at seducing them away from reason and common sense.

      In a short amount of time, the anti-gluten ideology “reigns in the flock” and a whole new market niche is created. And in a sense, it’s hard to blame people without a scientific education. The actual science requires considerable effort and open-mindedness to assimilate. The anti-gluten ideology is made simple by design:

      1. Gluten is evil period (horror film music playing the background)
      2. Good news everyone: we have gluten free products that will save you. (Cut to Superman theme)
      3. They’re (a lot) more expensive of course but how much is your health worth right?

      Note that you can replace gluten by any common popular foodstuff: soy, margarine, wheat, etc… and come up with silly ideas about how they are bad for you and/or cause obesity (all those recent health and weight-loss fads you see on various web site banners). Same tripe.

      • I think one thing that we shouldn’t overlook is that there is usually some core of truth to these fads. The problem is that they get blown way out of proportion. I think most modern people do eat too many carbs and too much wheat. Just as I think most people eat too much sugar and fat.

        The problems come when you overdo these things or try for easy fixes. Replacing sugar with Aspertame for example or replacing Gluten in your muffin with whatever chemical concoction they use in those kinds of gluten free foods. Or going to the extreme of having no fats or oils, we need some of that stuff in our diet.

        I’ve lost almost 60 pounds in the last two years and I never went on a diet and in fact I didn’t even struggle that much with it. Just ate more protein, fruits, and vegetables and less carbs, sugar, and fat. Also, and this one did take a little will power, stopped drinking wine with most evening meals. Oh and more exercise. I think that really is all anyone needs to know about how to lose weight and keep it off. The rest, the cave man diets, etc. are just marketing hype.

        • I mostly agree with a few exceptions. First, regarding “Replacing sugar with Aspertame for example”. I gladly replace sugar with aspartame in some cases (usually soft drinks). We’ve all heard the mantra regarding the amount of sugar in a can of soda (roughly 10-11 teaspoons – imagine adding this much to your coffee or tea!) That’s approaching 200 calories…of sugar! I will take my chances with the exhaustingly tested few drops of aspartame over the load of pancreas bashing sugar any day of the week. You might suggest that water is a better option and I would agree, but when I want a soda I reach for a diet soda option. The other aspect where I doth protest is I am not giving up my wine! I know, you’re not suggesting I do and it seemed like it wasn’t easy for you, so kudos (and kudos on the weight loss as well).

          Completely agree with the rest though. There is zero mystery why there is an obesity issue (mostly) worldwide and particularly in the US.

          In reply to #13 by Red Dog:

          I think one thing that we shouldn’t overlook is that there is usually some core of truth to these fads. The problem is that they get blown way out of proportion. I think most modern people do eat too many carbs and too much wheat. Just as I think most people eat too much sugar and fat.

          The problems…

  3. I am a Coeliac and in some respects the gluten fad has been good for me, opening up a whole selection of foods that were previously unavailable. However, as a downside, restaurant staff don’t really understand the seriousness of my gluten free request and have messed up on so many occasions in the last couple of years, I have now developed lymphocytic colitis as a result. When they see non coeliacs asking for gluten free and then chowing down on a cake or sandwich, it’s no wonder. I’ve also seen eggs labelled as gluten free! How ridiculous! Hopefully this country is a little more sensible than to allow the labelling of beauty products as gluten free. By the way, hydrolysed wheat protein would not contain gluten as it is too refined anyway. The chances of a coeliac ingesting gluten from a postage stamp or lip gloss is virtually nil and amounts to an urban myth.

  4. Tassie devil (Comment 9) says *The chances of a coeliac ingesting gluten from a postage stamp or lip gloss is virtually nil *

    Exactly. There is a “princess and the pea” element to all of this, which many people believe.

  5. Another BS article from one of the hacks on the “science” in medicine website. Interestingly, there is a peer-reviewed article cited in the comments on the site (http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/72/5/560.full), versus the non-peer reviewed article being discussed here, where there is documented a great deal of legitimate research on the very real problem of non-Celiac Disease gluten sensitivity. Seriously, this Gorski character runs a mastectomy practice at Wayne State. What does he know? He is a high-level technician, not a scientist.

    Don’t get me wrong, there is no doubt an enormous amount of gluten-free nonsense out there, particularly with the folks that have “their own truths”, and much of it ranks up there with Vegan coconut oil I recently saw in my often frequented Whole Foods. This website though does itself a great disservice when it admits the likes of tools like Gorski or anyone else from the BS spewing hacks at the science in medicine website. It is dispiriting that a website which celebrates real science in so many cases then fails to discriminate the clear distinctions between technology and science.

    Does this website have an editor?

  6. I am coeliac and definitely benefit from both the increased labelling and awareness of gluten free foods. It is obvious that many people on a gluten free diet do not have to be, but they increase the market which benefits me. Also, I am definitely allergic to some wheat containing shampoos, so this is not purely a fad. There is a downside though, some people can assume it isn’t that bad because their friend is gluten free but still has a cake every now and again and is fine. I have just moved to Kelowna (British Columbia, Canada) and Gluten free is amazing here in that it is available everywhere, and they always ask allergy or preference, and if allergy they change gloves, clean down work benches etc.

    • In reply to #16 by The-Stoat:

      I am coeliac and definitely benefit from both the increased labelling and awareness of gluten free foods. It is obvious that many people on a gluten free diet do not have to be, but they increase the market which benefits me. Also, I am definitely allergic to some wheat containing shampoos, so thi…

      You’re right there is a down side but most restaurateurs understand the difference between having celiac disease and wanting to be part time gluten free.

      GF’s not impossible in Alberta either.

  7. I must say, i didn’t expect this kind of James-Randi-wannabe-articles on a respectable forum like this. I will bypass the arguing about the dangers of gluten and instead ask you self promoted experts this:

    1. Is there, in your country, a completely neutral science facility, funded with state money, that can conduct enough tests to ensure it’s citizens the products they buy at their supermarket is not harmful for their bodies?
    2. Has there been enough tests to prove that all these “relacement products” consisting of tousands of additives are in no way affecting humans in a bad way?
    3. Would you trust a company, who is the only company who has managed to fill your local grocery shop with “glutenfree/sugarfree/nutfree” products?

    Of course it’s not so easy to answer yes to these quiestions. It gets even worse if you or your kid are diagnosed with CD. I’m not diagnosed with CD myself, but try convince me who i shall be most sceptical against. Now, i just learned that i’m labeled sheeple because of my choice to try to stay off gluten to see if i can improve my bloated and angry stomach. It’s not the same as in speaking in tounges while looking into crystal stones and bashing the “evil capitalists”. Fortunatly for me, there is better and better selection every year with different products, much to the fact that i happen to also live in a nice and shiny upper middle class neighbourhood in sweden. Fortunatly, i’ve learned by the great master himself, Mr Dawkins, to stay sceptic. That is why this article gets my thumb down and thrown in the bin.

    PS. i’m not part of a “fad”!

    • In reply to #17 by kjertil:

      I must say, i didn’t expect this kind of James-Randi-wannabe-articles on a respectable forum like this. I will bypass the arguing about the dangers of gluten and instead ask you self promoted experts this:

      Is there, in your country, a completely neutral science facility, funded with state money, t…

      You seem to be reacting to conversations you have had before, not here. If you have a point you may have to be clearer, we weren’t there.

      On the actual substance of your post, I have had a similar experience. When my wife was diagnosed with CD my symptoms were so fucking similar I had to have it too. Needless to say my home diagnosis was completely incorrect.

      After months of deteriorating to my “best” weight yet (I looked good for a change) and much time spent on the toilet I managed to talk to my doctor who made a simple diagnosis and now I’m on some lovely medication, and alive.

      Perhaps if you have a stomach like mine your doctor can help more than your grocery store. I would be dead if I hadn’t stopped thinking I knew what was wrong and talked to a professional.

      Good luck with your guts.

  8. My girlfriend reckons she is gluten sensitive ever since a reflexologist told her she was. She complains of headaches and sinus problems when she eats wheat, although she always seems to be ill with one thing or another regardless of what she’s eating.

    I don’t believe she really has a problem as she refuses to get tested by a medical professional but she is so certain that gluten is generically ‘bad’ that she is successfully converting everyone who will listen to her anecdotes to a gluten free diet. Madness.

  9. Nearly Naked Ape, Comment 12:
    Congratulations on your ability to dress yourself. At any rate, given your wonderful (self-professed) education (or is it edumacation?), intellectual tools, etc. and the amazing intelligence no doubt in your possession, it is great to know that wholesome industrially produced margarine, a non-food foodstuff, is in fact good for us despite all research to the contrary. I believe even the Am. Heart Assoc. is recommending folks give it a wide berth. Splendid advice though. Are you by chance an engineer?

  10. alaskasee – i realize my comment was a bit confusing as i had a fever…

    In short, my point is just that it’s pretty lame to speak out against other people who experiments with their diets. I mean, what’s the extreme counterpart, eating at Mc Donalds every day and drinking buckets of soda and thinking your going to be OK?
    People all over the world needs to focus on the damn food industry, not individuals who on forums might seem desperate to cure something or just live a healthier life. It’s a mystery to me how so many people, especially in the same facebook feed just randomly calling “gluten sensetive” a scam and their followers a stupid herd. I just doesn’t belong in a scientific forum like this as some one else already pointed out.
    You want some conspiracy shit!? How about that the state in sweden for example supports the foodindustry by subsidizing gluten free products to CD families with a medical prescription. Those people are dependent that those products doesn’t do more harm than good!
    But, oh-no, i we’re just all a bunch of whiny idiots who “beleive” stuff about the things we eat, right?
    Co’mon Dawkins, leave this sensational stuff out, you’re doing great!

    In reply to #20 by alaskansee:

    In reply to #17 by kjertil:

    I must say, i didn’t expect this kind of James-Randi-wannabe-articles on a respectable forum like this. I will bypass the arguing about the dangers of gluten and instead ask you self promoted experts this:

    Is there, in your country, a completely neutral science facility…

    • In reply to #22 by kjertil:

      Reading your postings, I’m not sure if you are against the unregulated selling of ‘untested’ gluten-free products, defending the right to use such products, or both. Neither of these is objectionable. As alankasee said, you appear to be answering a different conversation.

      Gorski’s article simply objects to the labelling gluten-free as a definitely ‘healthier’ choice and points out that the majority of people with some or all of the symptoms of Coeliac or wheat allergy don’t actually have either.

      From a scientific perspective, the gluten-free trend makes finding out the truth more difficult because:

      1) Removing gluten removes the stimulus that lets us detect a problem e.g. antibodies to wheat protein, changes in the gut wall under the microscope or other undiscovered biomarkers

      2) It takes the focus off other potential triggers in grain or even a totally different disease. Not looking elsewhere feeds back into problem 1.

      3) Nocebo response means that people won’t go back even if gluten has nothing to do with their problem. This feeds back into 1 and 2.

      It doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem but demonising a specific protein component of grain to the point where you keep it out of skin creams? Unless one is extraordinarily allergic to wheat and the type to spread it on broken skin or lick one’s fingers after moisturising…

      • In reply to #23 by Docjitters:
        Definitely, gluten free products are not equal healthier products, that’s what i said in my first post. I would assume it’s even worse for some products who’s only purpose is to mimic the real products, like gluten free buns or crackers. Surely, the market for gluten free cosmetics might be limited but there is simply not enough research around “gluten sensitivity” to say anything about it at the moment, and Gorski knows this.

        Unfortunatly that doesn’t seem to be the case with a lot of the commenters coming to RDF for the atheist stuff who also seem happy to just join the crowd bullying the people calling them selves “gluten sensitive”. There are an easy way to test if you feel better with out a certain component and that is, just leave it out to see if it makes a difference. This is what your doctor will tell you. If it’s difficoult to say, well then lets do gastroscopy to inspect your gut wall and make insensitive tests but that is on a whole different level. A test, by the way, that might as well test negative. See the difference?

        PS. I lost almost 10kg after excluding gluten, which was good for the following bikini season!

        In reply to #22 by kjertil:

        Reading your postings, I’m not sure if you are against the unregulated selling of ‘untested’ gluten-free products, defending the right to use such products, or both. Neither of these is objectionable. As alankasee said, you appear to be answering a different conversation…

        • In reply to #24 by kjertil:

          If you have been subject to bullying over your dietary choice, I am sorry. However I don’t think you can say it has gone on in this thread – again, you appear to be passing judgement on a different conversation (and others on this thread) which is not strictly relevant.

          You are right that absence of evidence (for non-Coeliac/non-allergic gluten sensitivity) is not evidence of absence but Gorski’s interpretation of the evidence is correct even if it seems harsh to you and fellow sufferers: NCGS is not a true diagnosis since it has no defining criteria, no biomarkers and no intervention with proven effect. This is not saying you don’t have a problem but to label it ‘NCGS’ and encourage ‘treatment’ based on the label (because it seems to make you feel better) is to commit a grave sin against robust medical evidence – namely, finding one’s hypothesis in the data.

        • In reply to #24 by kjertil:

          …If it’s difficoult to say, well then lets do gastroscopy to inspect your gut wall and make insensitive tests but that is on a whole different level. A test, by the way, that might as well test negative. See the difference?

          I think I get your meaning; nobody wants to go through invasive testing, especially if it won’t prove anything either way. However, spare a thought for the doctors: the background prevalence of a condition affects the reliability of even a very sensitive and specific test. If a condition is rare to start with, unless the test is perfect you are going to get a high ratio of false positives and/or negatives relative to ‘true’ results. Even though the blood tests for Coeliac are very sensitive and specific and duodenal biopsy characteristic (if disease is severe enough), clinical suspicion is still key since levels on the test are not necessarily related to how bad you feel and you can have (true) positive testing without suffering the condition. So when faced with a patient who is convinced they have gluten-sensitivity, no amount of testing is going to convince them if they fear going back to gluten (or whatever). This contributes to nocebo or masks the true reason as I mentioned in my first post. That is why it is wrong to encourage demand for a something that is not treatment but a response which had its defining question made up after it was done. To borrow Ben Goldacre’s wonderful analogy: it’s like me shooting blindfold at a wall 1000 times, drawing a target around 5 bullets that happen to be close together and then calling myself a good shot!

Leave a Reply