Monica Reinagel from nutritiondata.com. Still antivegan, but more subtle now?

For English readers who are confused about this blog, it’s a German blog fighting antiveganism, but occaisionally texts are published in English as well. This is one of them, for context it’s necessary that you read this first: http://blog.nutritiondata.com/ndblog/2010/01/veganism-not-for-everyone.html

Monica Reinagel is an antivegan nutritionist who writes the column blog called „Ask Monica“ and answers questions on the very popular website nutritiondata.com. The questions she answers aren’t spontaneous or public ones from the commenters of the column, they’re from sources offsite, that is, someone sends her a question through a web form.

In the recent question regarding the vegan diet, the asker claims to have suffered from „brain fog“, constant sleepiness, depression and lack of energy despite being health conscious and making an effort to eat a nutritionally adequate vegan diet, and Monica Reinagel is happy to conclude that the vegan diet is not for everyone and is possibly (very) hard to maintain.

While the feel of her reply to the current „vegan question“ is notably neutral, she actually uses a rhetorical trick to discredit the ADA paper on vegetarian and vegan diets so she can go on marking the vegan diet as dangerous, despite evidence to the contrary. It’s so well crafted that one could easily read over it, but I was slightly suspicious because of an earlier question on this column which was asked some time ago and demonstrated a blatant anti-vegan attitude. I’d actually like to add more adjectives to blatant to fully resemble the spectrum of wrongness and I’ll not link it here because it just does not deserve more energy to search engine ranking. That response that time cited an article of the New York Times as a source for nutritional inadequacy (!) of the vegan diet, an article for which the newspaper has practically apologized later on, that’s how unfair it was. I’m not sure whether Monica has apologized yet. The article in the NYT was of the „vegan diet kills your baby dead“ type.

Basically the construct we have here is that a long term ex-vegan (!) who claims to have followed an adequate diet including B12 et al,  links health problems that are dead sure linked to the vegan diet, is placed opposite to the scientific authority of the ADA paper which concludes that vegan diets are OK for ::gasp:: all ages. I’m sure there’s a fancy Latin name for this rhetorical construct, but you’ll just have to go by my description.

What struck me first was this odd „brain fog“ index term. This descriptor has been used almost like a catch phrase many times by people who later were outed as anti-vegan trolls in forums and blogs. I don’t know why „brain fog“ is so popular as a discrediting marker by anti-vegans. It’s almost like as if „brain fog“ is for antivegans what „stingy misers“ is for antisemites.  What’s so striking is, above that, the odd phenomenon, and yes I’m being sarcastic here, that „brain fog“ like conditions connected to the vegan diet seem to exist only where people speak English natively… BTW, antivegan trolls these days don’t only just hate vegans, it’s a job now and they receive money for it. I can’t quite say whether Monica was ridden by one, or whether she is one.

The tone and language used by the person we are made to believe is asking the question is also telling in that she speaks of vegans as if they’re that external group. It’s strange that someone who claims to have been vegan herself for 9 years (!), would speak of vegans as „this other people“. And the ADA paper has been a tough nut to crack for anti-vegans indeed, which the asker frames as something vegans use as a victory. I’m not sure if it is a victory, and frankly I didn’t know we’re at war with anyone. We just like people to stop using animals (for food and other stuff). Also, Monica is pretty much „burnt“ as an antivegan in the vegan community, even if you’re ex-vegan, would you trust an antivegan to answer your question relating to the vegan diet neutrally? I wouldn’t.

So I can’t help but feeling there’s something fishy here. And even if there isn’t, given the previous bias of the blog, it leaves a bitter taste that some obvious things weren’t considered in the answer by Monica Reinagel, even if everything is genuine and I’m just having a neurotic fit of sorts.

Of course it could very well be that the asker was not vegan, but a vegan dieter, vegan dieters often forget to mention that they actually are not vegans, but vegan dieters. As such, they don’t socialize with vegans or consider themselves belonging to vegans as a social group, contrary to us who have a strong cultural identification with other vegans all over the world. This could explain why she referred to vegans as a social group that exists somewhere outside her cultural identity. Sort of the way some white middleclass Americans speak of „Latinos“, even if they’ve lived in Mexico for many years.

The first big mistake that Monica did was ignoring the possibility of the askers diet, rather the vegan diet in general being to blame for „brain fog“. However, without an analysis of THIS PERSONS vegan diet, which she also chose to generalize as „the“ vegan diet (!), any attempt to figure out the adequacy of HER vegan diet is futile of course and on the other hand very practical if you’d wanted to sling some FUD. There is another rhetorical curiosity. The asker only confirms indirectly that her problems vanished after she stopped eating vegan, it’s never addressed directly. It’s left for the reader to fill the gap in our mind to conclude, that the problems actually vanished and went away after the she stopped being vegan. This creates a sort of de facto evidence in the readers mind that the vegan diet is the only possible link to the the conditions. And there’s another one yet again. The length of time the asker was vegan, 9 years nonetheless, suggests to the reader that there may be long term consequences if you’re vegan. But how probable or likely is someone who endures 9 years of health problems without getting to the source of it? The whole thing just doesn’t rhyme.

It’s also  noted that Monica, who is suppose to be our nutrition expert here chose as well to accept the notion of one, mysterious vegan, uniform and standard „vegan diet“ as a given fact, without even considering individual difference in real life. The very fact that she chose to believe the askers diet to be adequate without real analysis, is evidence of pseudoscience being conducted. Instead, she supports the thesis of the asker that the ominous general vegan diet is to blame,  and even confirms, that „this experience is not unusual“. I’d really appreciate some sources for this claim. Because the type of vegans who go to nutritionists are those who are already having problems. To extrapolate people who have problems with food as „not unusual“ onto the general vegan population is a sort of „experts cognitive dissonance“. It happens to doctors whose patients are vegan as well. They see sick people all day, but when they find out their patient is vegan, they have this „unexplainable“ urge to link the sickness with the vegan diet.

I spent many hours giving support to vegans and vegan dieters in forums and by email, and time and time again, feelings of not doing well on the vegan diet, energy problems, were people with masked eating disorders who simply had not enough caloric intake. When I ask for a typical food of the day, I get answers like: Well today I had an apple, some soy yogurt and a salad.

If you have like 600 kcal in a day you’re bound to have energy problems… That’s not a problem of the vegan diet, this is a problem of anorexia nervosa or related eating disorder.

It all comes down to this: There’s simply no nutrient that’s missing from the vegan diet, that isn’t missing on a regular diet as well. Things like iodine, selenium in some parts of the world or Vitamin D, which is a global problem and can’t be fixed with food anyway. The only critical thing is Vitamin B12, and since this is produced by fermenting bacteria, it’s vegan to include it in the diet as a supplement. There’s a German fermentation expert, Prof. Bärwald who was able to ferment B12 inside vegan foods, however his method was never successful given the market dominance of the pure form regular production method.

After researching many claims of people doing bad on the vegan diet, I must be suspicious of such reports, because I’ve looked at, well maybe not dozens of cases but it was always another problem which got subsumed as „vegan diet“. Either it was undiagnosed eating disorder, undiagnosed food allergies or intolerances or people simply had a miserable concept of nutrition despite believing that they were doing fine. It takes some digging and patience to find out what the real problem is especially for the one affected. Blaming the vegan diet is so much more simple.

It’s striking that Monica did not conduct any of these reasonings, but rather chose to blindly support the negative notion of the asker… The conclusion for her in this matter is even more bleak if it’s not just antivegan conspiracy, because then it points to incompetence. Ouch.

And yes, of course. I’m one of those long term vegans who do wonderfully on the vegan diet, apart from my 15kg overweight, which is distributed nicely though.

I tried to comment on site but I got a message they can’t accept my data. Well Google and Bing can :-)

Creative Commons License

Ava Odoemena

Schlagwörter: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

17 Antworten to “Monica Reinagel from nutritiondata.com. Still antivegan, but more subtle now?”

  1. Greg Says:

    What’s all the fuss, it’s jus a diet!

    • Ava Odoemena Says:

      Actually Greg, no, it is not just a diet. It is first and foremost a cultural choice if someone opts to become a vegan. It’s merely a diet for vegan dieters, that is, people who follow one of the many variants of plant based diets. Many vegan dieters though still consume things like leather, wool, silk, feathers and other animal based products.

      However, this really isn’t the issue here. The issue here is that people like Monica have been portraying the vegan diet in terms that just doesn’t represent the practical and scientific presence, and since veganism is a cultural choice, this hurts us.

      Vegans are hurt by antiveganism and it’s just not OK to pretend as if it was merely a dietary option.

  2. Ava Odoemena Says:

    It appears that someone found the entry before I linked it in Monicas blog, she’s already responded, I quote it here:

    Monica’s Response: Interesting. For the record, I’m not anti-vegan, though. For all her talk about rhetoric and logic, she makes a lot of unfounded assumptions and inaccurate conclusions (about my positions and motivations, at least).

  3. Monica Reinagel Says:

    Hallo, Ava, u.A.

    ich bitte um ein Paar Tagen, eine umfaenglichere Antwort zu komponieren (allerdings nicht auf Deutsch…). Ich bin eben vom Urlaub zuruekgekommen und habe eine Haufe korrespondenz durchzuschaufeln. Bis Bald!

  4. Ava Odoemena Says:

    Very interesting. There’s now some traffic from an anti-vegan blog whose author is claiming that s/he asked Monica that question. That is, the author claims to be a vegan of 9 years who then turned around to create a defamatory antivegan blog.

    So if this is indeed the person who asked Monica the question, my feeling that there was some smelly meat around, was dead on so to say. Oddly, after confirming my suspicion, s/he goes on calling my analysis a „paranoid rant“. I mentioned the possibility that Monica was ridden by an antivegan troll, and indeed, she was. If I fear that „they“ are after me, and then „they“ club me over the head, that’s not called paranoia but foresight and intuition my friend.

    I tend to believe the claim that the author of the blog is identical to the person asking the question to Monica, because the same sort of suggestive, defamatory and narcissistic manipulation that aired through the question on Monicas blog, is mirrored on the blog.

    The blog uses the known defamatory rhetoric of tunneling into extreme examples of „veganism“ (actually raw food mostly), and then goes on to suggestively extrapolate these examples onto all vegans and veganism. It develops quite a perverse quality doing so, „sporting“ images of „sickly looking vegans“, which often shows simply elderly or slim people, or people who because of there momentary body movement or facial expression look somehow different. Only very few of the used people actually look sickly. However utilization of elderly people as examples for „sickly looking vegans“ is particularly disturbing. Even to come up with the idea to go to a convention to hunt for sick looking people to put up on your blog is far beyond decent conduct. It’s certainly „beyond vegetarianism“.

    Like with many reactionary (anti-vegans), there is this extreme tendency of projection to the point of cognitive dissonance, thus conducting exactly the criticized behavior. The author goes on in volumes about how vegans are actually nice, but how veganism is this horrid ideology, yet the essence of his blog is just a horrid ideology of violating and defaming people by means of suggestive manipulation.

    There is also an irritating asynchronity of the author presenting himself vulnerable and questioning and full of self doubt about the blog, yet this is mirrored on the other side by a very unscrupulous form of anti-veganism.

    Unfortunately the recent entry here on Veganes Auge about Orthorexia is in German and the type of German used too non-average for it to make any sense by automatic translation into English.

    There I mention exactly that anti-vegan smearing strategy by beyondveg.com, who is run by yet another failed raw foodist who uses exactly this strategy of defamation; and sure enough, letthemeatmeat.com links to beyondveg.com. Brothers in spirit, or more? There are alarming similarities in style and conduct, themes and subjects. And on beyond.veg, the strategy of using loony raw foodists to extrapolate their characters onto general vegans is the core rhetoric as well.

    Notably the blog talks about health a lot, such as raw food vegan dieters do, so another one of my suspicions were accurate, the asker was a vegan dieter and not a vegan. I haven’t read too deeply into the blog to find out if the author is also a failed raw foodist himself, it wouldn’t surprise me.

    So we nailed it down to yet another narcissistic, anti-vegan troll with a life mission, the question which remains, is whether his passion is also paying his bills…

    In any case, as the situation stands it’s already appropriate to offer my apologies to Monica in terms of me suspecting that she may have formulated the question herself, such deviousness and manipulation can now be safely attributed to the author of „letthemhavemeat“.

  5. Monica Reinagel Says:

    Ava seems to have read a lot of things into my post that are not there. At the same time, she appears to have missed much of what I DID say.

    For the record: I am neither pro- nor anti-vegan. While I’m sensitive to the fact that dietary choices have ramifications beyond the health of the individual, my blog on NutritionData.comis focused primarily on nutrition.

    As Ava points out above, veganism is not just a diet, it’s an ideology. There are many compelling reasons to adopt a vegan lifestyle: ecological, ethical, environmental, social, and so on. Of all the arguments for a vegan lifestyle, the nutritional superiority of the vegan diet is probably the least convincing one.

    But (as I said) if someone is adopting a vegan diet out of ethical, social, or other reasons, that issue is is moot. The nutritionist’s goal is not to validate or invalidate those ideological positions but to maximize the nutritional status and well-being of that individual, given those constraints. And, as I said, I agree with the ADA that a vegan diet can–but does not automatically–provide a nutritionally adequate diet. (The same is true of omniverous diets.)

    But is a vegan diet inherently more ore less healthful than a meat-eating diet? I place little weight on anecdotal reports in EITHER direction. For every ex-vegan who felt their „brain fog“ lift when they added meat to their diet, there is a vegan who says their „fill-in-the-blank“ was alleviated when they eliminated meat. But who knows what other factors were at play?

    As both Ava and I have pointed out, knowing whether someone does or does not consume animal products reveals very little about the nutritional quality of their diet. I also believe that there is a great deal of individual variation in how people respond physiologically to diet.

    Human nutrition is an incomplete and evolving science. As there is so much that is still unknown, I resist the notion that everyone can or should arrive at the same conclusions–and certainly not on the basis of anecdotal evidence or correlations. I try to maintain a forum in which ideas and evidence can be discussed and debated respectfully. Not surprisingly, ideologues (from across the spectrum) are often dissatisfied with that approach.

    Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

    • Ava Odoemena Says:

      Hello Monica, thanks for the response.

      It’s interesting that you chose to use the term ideology instead of philosophy, considering the negative connotation of ideology, and further on to discuss the issue of „superiority“ knowing the recipient of your reply is a German in Germany.

      But even if there wasn’t a subtext in which you construct your position as the Jeanne d’Arc of dietary neutrality who has got to defend such precious against the food Nazis (of all sorts), the „superiority“ of the vegan diet was never my concern. I’m a vibrant critic of raw food for example, a group of mostly vegan dieters who actually claim such things. However the reality that a vegan diet can be good or bad I never denied.

      When looking at dietary neutrality, which is an interesting subject, given that the essence of my critique was the claim that such neutrality by you can’t really be felt by vegan community (and pointing people to „vegan food kills your baby dead“ articles or falling smoothly for a prolific antivegan troll doesn’t really help either:-); when looking at dietary neutrality, can we really remain to afford to tunnel onto the biochemistry alone?

      Considering that our food choices are affecting not only our own wellbeing but also the environment and a multitude of interconnected fields, how „neutral“ is a science which tunnels into one aspect and ignores all others? Or is it not, that such tunneled neutrality is in itself an ideology?

      More animals are killed each year than humans died of all causes in all of our evolutionary history, ever. Each year.

      I’m somewhat glad I’m not forced to balance that sort of neutrality.

      BTW, I hear the New York Times now defends the rights of plants with arguments that seem to stem from the pen of Jayson Blair. But I`m glad we discussed the aspect of (scientific) neutrality, so I hope the chance you’ll link to that is somewhat less, now that we’ve had a chance to exchange positions:-)

  6. Monica Reinagel Says:

    Feel free to substitute the word „philosophy“ for „ideology“ and the word „advantages“ for the word „superiority.“ It does not change my meaning.

  7. A layman Says:

    Ava Odoemena, you are a crazy, crazy lady! ^_^

  8. madie Says:

    Hi Ava,

    You are very irresponsible… you are that type of person that cares more for animals than for humans…

    I was also vegetarian for 12 years ( during this time I was 50% vegetarian, and 50% vegan ) and I felt the same symptoms: brain fog, memory and energy problems…

    I took some blood samples and I discovered that I had very high homocysteine, very low B12, to much iron in my blood, but very low levels of ferritine ( because my body couldn’t assimilate the iron due to the lack of B12 ) …
    And I know at least two other long term veg*ns with the same pattern in their blood samples…. SO YES IT IS TRUE: SOME PEOPLE CANNOT DO WELL ON VEG*N DIETS.

    And some comments about your post:
    1.
    „The length of time the asker was vegan, 9 years nonetheless, suggests to the reader that there may be long term consequences if you’re vegan. But how probable or likely is someone who endures 9 years of health problems without getting to the source of it?“

    – well, as you may know B12 deficiency appears in time … it cat take many years until the body stores of B12 are depleted … this is the simple logical explanation don’t you think?
    2.
    „There’s simply no nutrient that’s missing from the vegan diet, that isn’t missing on a regular diet as well. Things like iodine, selenium in some parts of the world or Vitamin D, which is a global problem and can’t be fixed with food anyway. The only critical thing is Vitamin B12“

    -> well there are other nutrients missing. It is DHA nutrient that is extremly important for brain development and eyes….

    You may want to read the postings bellow:

    „With all of this documented research, it is not surprising that when I draw blood for fatty acid analysis on many of my patients, I find that a large percentage of individuals who do not eat fish or seafood regularly do not have optimal levels of DHA, even those eating walnuts and flaxseeds on a regular basis. I often see patients eating otherwise excellent diets with itchy dry skin, seborrheac dermatitis and other signs of DHA deficiency.“

    source:

    http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/debunking-diet-myths-what-vegans-may-be-missing.html

    http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/supplements-dr-fuhrman-discusses-dha-for-children.html

    … and regarding Monica point of view… I found her very indulgent with vegan diets .. I often feel that she doesn’t point all the risks related with this diet….

    • Ava Odoemena Says:

      Aloha Madie

      You are very irresponsible… you are that type of person that cares more for animals than for humans…

      Please note that in Germany, it’s regarded as infantile to enter a debate with unsubstantiated suppositions and denigrations.

      I was also vegetarian for 12 years ( during this time I was 50% vegetarian, and 50% vegan ) and I felt the same symptoms: brain fog, memory and energy problems…

      I took some blood samples and I discovered that I had very high homocysteine, very low B12, to much iron in my blood, but very low levels of ferritine ( because my body couldn’t assimilate the iron due to the lack of B12 ) …
      And I know at least two other long term veg*ns with the same pattern in their blood samples…. SO YES IT IS TRUE: SOME PEOPLE CANNOT DO WELL ON VEG*N DIETS.

      OK, so what you are saying here, is that you were illinformed and therefore followed an inadequate vegetarian diet. Inadequate diets lead to health problems, irregardless if the inadequate diet is vegetarian or not.

      Any site which seriously informs about vegan nutrition, discusses the vitamin B12 issue at large. Vitamin B12 is of bacterial origin, so until Prof. Bärwalds method of fermenting bioactive B12 in foods is implemented (that is, whenever the market is big enough to demand that method), vegans and most vegetarians must integrate B12 which was fermented with the current method of bacterial fermentation.

      That you, because you lacked basic information about vegan nutrition, went on to develop a B12 deficiency is tragic and I’m sorry about that. It could have been easily prevented if you had shown an interest in the basic principles of vegan nutrition. However, people whose diet was or is inadequate, are not „some people who do bad on the vegan diet“, but these people made specific mistakes. If you step into your car, and drive through red lights and have a crash, it’s not the fault of the car maker… And neither is the vegan diet to blame for individual mistakes. It’s quite annoying actually and an audacity, that anyone would dare to rhetorically extrapolate such an individual mistake onto the whole vegan diet, ignoring, while doing that, the reality of people who do not make such mistakes and do very well.

      And some comments about your post:
      1.
      “The length of time the asker was vegan, 9 years nonetheless, suggests to the reader that there may be long term consequences if you’re vegan. But how probable or likely is someone who endures 9 years of health problems without getting to the source of it?”

      – well, as you may know B12 deficiency appears in time … it cat take many years until the body stores of B12 are depleted … this is the simple logical explanation don’t you think?

      The person you’re referring to (as that is who I relate to in the qutote), is a known, prolific antivegan troll, a failed raw foodist who never resolved his coginitive dissonance, yet turned around to project that onto vegans. He uses the same rhetorical structure as e. g. antisemites to smear vegans. I believe the writer of the blog „letthemhavemeat“ (who outed himself as the origin of the question to Monica), and the maker of beyondveg.com are identical. I do not know if he does this for a living (there are various lobby groups who are funding an antivegan infowar, like the „center for consumer freedom“), or if he’s just a fanatical nut who simply picked vegans for his lawn-middleclass-bored-to-death social racism, because ethnic racism is somewhat out now. So know to whose defense you’re jumping, someone, who really doesn’t need your defense, and who would even think you’re dumb for serving as a justification for his thesis. He probably laughs about people who fall for his rhetoric and even internalize it.

      Nevertheless, while your observation is correct, the way I understood the claim, is that the troll, when he was a vegan or rawfoodist, suffered these health problems pretty much the whole time. And I’m sure you’ll agree, that that is very unlikely. Even if he suffered just for one year, was he living inside the Central American rainforest with no access to health care at all?

      2.
      “There’s simply no nutrient that’s missing from the vegan diet, that isn’t missing on a regular diet as well. Things like iodine, selenium in some parts of the world or Vitamin D, which is a global problem and can’t be fixed with food anyway. The only critical thing is Vitamin B12″

      -> well there are other nutrients missing. It is DHA nutrient that is extremly important for brain development and eyes….

      The body is capable to produce it’s own DHA if your fat balance is right. Something which is easily achieved by an adequate vegan diet. And I’ll gladly follow your links to investigate your claim, but given your inability to even differentiate between an adequate diet and an inadequate diet, I’m very much afraid I’ll find the same flaw of reasoning in any antivegan argument you’re postulating.

      … and regarding Monica point of view… I found her very indulgent with vegan diets .. I often feel that she doesn’t point all the risks related with this diet….

      Well, there is no reason, she as a scientist should point out sweaty, antivegan fantasies… no offense.

      So, I’m sorry for responding to you somewhat harshly, but I’ve been through all of these arguments a felt 10 million times, none of them getting any truer by repition. I feel it’s a very unfair fight, because we vegans are a minority so we can’t win the infowar. All we can hope for is for people to start using their brains and start thinking for themselves. And anybody who is interested in vegan nutrtion should of course inform her or himself about the basic principles. This would even be neccessary for any nutrition type. Because it’s not like the practical reality of the SAD* way of eating isn’t making people sick…

      *SAD = standard american affluent diet

  9. Lars Says:

    Ava, everyone has a philosophy about everything. Unfortunately most people don’t bother to develop and justify what they have chosen to believe.
    Sheeple.

    I am an advocate of ‚knowledge is justified true belief‘ so I cannot understand how you can say it is a ‚philosophy‘ (which implies that vegan way of life is debatable as the true, as the right way of life, and since you are a vegan your perspective is that you ‚know‘ that this is the true and right way of life) where you tooth morphology betrays you; omnivorous.

    Gorilla (Herbivore) and chimps (omnivore) both have similar morphology to us yet it has long been repeated that chimps are our closest genetic relative.

    The fact that you felt the need to interpret Monica’s use of the words „ideology“ and „superiority“ to be some sort of indirect Nazi undertone only leads readers perceptions of your agenda into a bad light.

    It reminds me of that pathetic and stale „its because Im black isn’t it?!“ argument used by minority’s in attempt to discredit whoever is against them and their ideal.

    Please take note that in the rest of the world it is regarded as „trolling“ to respond in sheer self-aggrandizement.

    • Ava Odoemena Says:

      Lars, I think you ought to pick up a biology book again and research how many evolutionary remnants from a distant past we carry around with ourselves. That our morphology is „omnivorous“, as you suggest, is not only utterly meaningless in this debate, it actually supports the vegan diet. Just because we CAN eat anything, IS the fact why it’s so easy to be vegan. Nowhere is it written, that because we CAN eat anything, we MUST eat EVERYTHING we can. It’s really simple logic and common sense.

      Yet you bore me with lame rhetorical twisting and mental acrobatics, something I’m really really tired of.

      And the rest of your failed argument says: „Ava is not allowed to use a polemic style in her criticism.“ (For whatever, mysterious reason…)

      *yawn*

  10. Lady Says:

    „You are very irresponsible… you are that type of person that cares more for animals than for humans… “
    *lol* oh ja, very irresponsable Ava!

Kommentar anbieten

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s