A New Theory of Hypnosis by Anthony Galie

[Applause] and thank you for last night I will go through this presentation in in a couple of stages I intend to this morning this is a new speech I've never given this before before anyone I have for years been working on a new theory as to the nature of hypnosis I presume most of you somewhere along the line have read a book about hypnosis and no doubt somewhere you read in that book that even though it has been around for probably a thousand years there is still no theory that is generally accepted as being the nature of hypnosis they still don't know exactly what it is and theories come and go but they tend to become disproved one after another I have been working on this theory I first had the idea in 1976 believe it or not kind of left it for a while came back to it and for at least the last five or six years have been perfecting it and this is the very first audience that I am laying it out for so the first two or three minutes if you'll just bear with me it is done in fairly technical jargon but that is to attract and to get the attention of the PhD psychologist and the experimentalist and then once that is over I will lay it out step by step how this theory developed where it came from what it's all about I think it makes sense and I will invite you at the end to criticize it and critique it the reason I'm going to post this video on as many sites as I can find it is I am essentially going to slap it up there and say tell me what's wrong with this tear it apart show me what doesn't work does anybody have any research that refutes this does anybody have any research that supports this what's wrong with this and if I do not get a lot of criticism or if I do not get many people stepping forward and telling me what's wrong with it I then will take the next step I intend to write it up and publish it as a peer review paper now I do have a collaborator Lisa Gilbert has been collaborating with me in terms of putting the theory together she could not be here with me today and I did decide to dedicate this presentation and this research to my best friend this is mr. Bob Davies who passed away three weeks ago in a skydiving act I had known Bob for 47 years he was a roommate of mine in college we were fraternity brothers we were best friends for 47 years he was also a public speaker had a horrible accident and tomorrow is his memorial I'll be giving the eulogy tomorrow in California which is why I will be leaving here around noon to catch a plane to go out to California Irvine and be at his memorial service but I wanted to dedicate that to Bob who was my best friend forever and so here is what you would call the abstract this is what the the gist of my theory is about this is entirely original as an idea there is simply nowhere on the internet that I have found any reference to what I am doing here my theory is predicated on a neurological condition known as neural mutual inhibition it exists in various parts of the brain it is usually a higher order part of the brain and where you see it is called neural mutual inhibition and this is what my theory is predicated on neurologically where you have competing systems that actively inhibit each other this is a new theory totally new in its in its conception if there is anyone out there that knows anyone that has ever had this idea before I would like to know so I can attribute it but the theory is sociobiological nature what that means is it combines both a biological definition or description of what hypnosis is that's the neurological mutual inhibition part and it also combines with it a sociological explanation I believe it becomes hypnotism or hypnosis when you pair this neurological state with verbal suggestion and the rituals that are involved in a hypnosis induction so it is known as a sociobiological Theory mutual inhibition the concept itself was first proposed in the 1950s as a theoretical construct the foundational work was done in the 60s and 70s much of it by Philip teitelbaum very famous psychologist out of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine so any of the researchers watching this you want to track down the original foundational research if they google mutual inhibition and they track down the lateral hypothalamic syndrome is what it was titled as they will see all of the foundational experiments that Teitelbaum did with rats and with cats laying the foundation for this theory it evolved and has continued to evolve there's still quite a bit of research going on in animal in the animal field but if anybody watching this once a perfect example of what I am talking about as it applies to the human mind there was a very good study done in 2010 by the Harvard researchers they call it the sleep switch study and anyone who wants to go after that and see a perfect example of what I'm talking about as it applies to human beings I would strongly recommend they dig this study up and read it because it gives an excellent description of what normal each one addition is how it applies to the human mind and in this particular case and sleep switch studying was the battle that goes on between being awake and being asleep and I've taken the liberty that is the information that's the title of the article these are the authors and that is the journal in which it can be found so anybody who wants to kind of find out what I'm talking about from a purely scientific point of view that would be the foundational information if they simply read the hell article they will know what I'm talking about that's the abstract now for the rest of us this is what I'm talking about if it is mutual inhibition if my theory is correct it does have some implications first of all the implication of Norlin habitable mutual inhibition situation that has been found in the human brain contains a switch mutual inhibition as it pertains to sleeping is quite simply when you someone goes to sleep it looks like you're turning something off I mean a person's awake they're active they're alert they go to sleep they're Sanyal ins or not moving around kind of looks like you turned something off doesn't it turns out you're very much turning something on studies have demonstrated conclusively now that when you go to sleep you have a different part of the brain that becomes activated that is turned on that puts the animal to sleep a completely different system and what it does is it inhibits the wakefulness circuits there are mutual inhibiting circuits when you are awake it inhibits the circuits that puts you to sleep a switch is thrown at a chemical level an or neurotransmitter and then the person goes to sleep but inhibits wakefulness it's mutual inhibition and this is how it applies to sleep this is how it applies for example to narcolepsy turns out narcolepsy is a classic example of a mutually inhibiting system and the key to narcolepsy is that the people that have that are lacking what is known as orexin which is a neural transmitter found deep in the hypothalamus they have a lack of that neurotransmitter so the brain is unable to control the switch so they're falling asleep uncontrollably they have found that that is a neural inhibition switch to give you an idea of what it's about so the implications are if it turns out that hypnosis and wakeful and unconsciousness is indeed what I think it is which is a norm you chua linh hashim situation there's going to be a switch and that switch is what they should be looking for there will be a switch that throws it back and forth between consciousness and a person going into trance and what the researchers I believe should be looking for and none of them are is that chemical switch because all the research indicates every switch that has been found is relatively few neurons it usually is just a couple hundred neurons it's not a big system it's usually a very small switch but the switch controls whether you're awake or you're asleep and if there is a switch that's controlling whether you are conscious or in a trance the researchers if my theory is correct should be directing their attention to locating that switch and the implications are profound if there's a switch controlling that well theoretically you could control the switch you can do it either chemically or electronically and think of what the implications are you could throw that switch and keep a person in a trance or throw the switch and keep them fully conscious or perhaps take a person who is a poor subject and if you can control the switch make them good subject if what I'm saying is correct the implications therapeutically are huge and no one is looking for the switch so those this is why I think that this theory has such implications and I'm going to make a statement and then move on I first heard about this from a professor I had in graduate school dr. Dave Wogan and he described it to me it was still in the experimental stage they were describing he had just done finished doing postdoctoral work with Philip teitelbaum he had spent two years after he got his PhD studying with Philip Teitelbaum when they were doing these rat studies about mutual mutual inhibition and he described it to us while I was in graduate school and they predicted back in 76 that they would eventually find this neural system for awake and sleep and it's precisely what the Harvard study came up with in 2010 and the thing that was so interesting to me is as he was describing it to me in 1976 I remember thinking to myself you know hypnosis kind of looks like that hypnosis looks like a mutual inhibition switch I will demonstrate what I'm talking about I I would need a volunteer if you wouldn't mind could you help me for just a moment sir that's the beauty it doesn't matter if you're a good subject or not that's gonna have implications Tim would you face the group and would you all take a look at Tim you've probably seen this before but let me explain what I mean by I believe it being a mutual inhibition switch Tim would you spell this word for me psychoanalysis do the best there he goes okay come on back here again I'll do it again can you remember the name of your 8th grade teacher there you go try do your best there he goes again see what he's doing I don't mean to interrupt I'm asking Tim questions that are not located in his conscious or short-term memory he has to stop for a moment to access that information most of us do not walk around with complicated words in our memory or as distant memories like who was your eighth grade teacher he did what nearly everyone does he stopped looking at me broke eye contact stared up into space looking for the answer do you recall doing that when you had your eyes open so far as I can tell you were looking at that light up there okay what what when actually you were looking out there just so you know it's on video for the record you were not looking at that but you thought you were looking at that so your eyes were wide open you think you were looking at that the question is I had asked you to spell a word or remember your teacher what were you seeing in those moment you're doing it again come on back here for a second you can't help we all do this and doesn't that kind of look like a switch being thrown when you ask a person a question that requires that kind of answer many of them roll their eyes back in their head they break eye contact then you ask them oh do you realize you looked away from me and he's a perfect example I was looking up there I got video proof he was looking out there he wasn't even looking where he thought he was looking and then you say well what were you seeing psychoanalysis I was seeing you know the name of my teacher so let me get this straight your eyes are wide open you're fully conscious you're looking at that light but you're seeing the word psychoanalysis do you think you're fully conscious in that instant well no we go in and out consciousness is not continuous consciousness is a big broken series of things we go in and out of that state thousands of times a day and back in 76 is a graduate student when dr. Wogan is describing to us the title bombs new theories of mutual inhibition and the switch being involved in the higher cortical systems I recall I had the insight that's kind of what I see when I hypnotize people they break eye contact they come back again that looks to me like a mutually inhibiting switch that was the first insight I had to kind of got me going and we all do this thank you for giving gives him a round of applause so it really does look like you're throwing a switch back and forth notice how fast that happens again the research is bearing all this out so I'm going to make four very broad assumptions in this presentation I'm going to ask you to bear with me I'm going to be using terms and making statements that I am fully aware are controversial but for what I'm saying today to make any sense at all we have to have a common language so I'm going to ask you if you wouldn't mind to give me some leeway just for this presentation going to use the word trance I think it's all a trance scientists don't use that word they will talk about focused attention attentiveness they won't use the word because of its baroque connotations and all of its spiritual I will use that word because it encompasses I think we can talk to the people about trans thing nobody is you're talking about and when I say it's all trance this is titled the nature of hypnosis but I am of the opinion that the state of hypnosis the neural condition that is involved there is really no different than driving past your excellent we're a pulley into the driveway and asking yourself how did I get here it's no different than daydreaming it's no different than woo gathering it's no different than these it was no different than the state of mind you saw him in for that brief instant when he had his eyes open wasn't seeing what he was looking at wasn't hearing what was going around him I'm gonna say it's all a trance and I am going to be using that term I do understand that's controversial there are many people that will argue to the teeth that hypnosis and Transcendental Meditation are completely different states of mind I got into an argument with someone on a radio show once the TM people it's absolutely completely different I I personally disagree but I will use trance as an all-encompassing term just for the purposes of this presentation so we're all speaking the same language also I'm going to use the term that I do know is controversial I'm going to talk about normal conscious state I'm gonna say this trance-like state as opposed to a normal conscious state when Tim was looking at me listening to what I was saying being a normal conscious state when he was staring off into space not seeing what he was looking at I'm gonna call that the trance-like state I am fully aware that that is open for discussion many many people say there is no such thing as a normal conscious state in a given day you could be happy sad angry bored you could be in a million different states there's actually no such thing as a normal conscious state for the purposes of this presentation I will use that term rather loosely but I'm going to be talking about normal conscious States versus a trance and I do another controversial but if you'll just bear with me for the purposes of this program those are the terms I will choose to use today again I'm gonna make another state that I realize is controversial I often will point to people I ran them and say could you define hypnosis for me and I do that too many hypnotist hypnotherapist and stage hypnotist and a very common answer I get back hypnosis is a state of deep relaxation characterized by heightened suggestibility I dispute that I would like to point out that the relaxation has nothing to do with hypnosis whatsoever the relaxation is an artifact the relaxation is a side-effect the relaxation is a holdover from braid when he coined it hypnosis and started talking about deep sleep and deep relaxation hypnotist could just as easily get a good subject and suggest they are stiff and rigid as a bar steel and stretch them across two chairs the exact opposite of relaxation relaxation has nothing at all to do with the neurological state known as hypnosis or a trance I do know that's open for disputes but I happen to think it's a complete artifact and it's just a it's a much more pleasant way to get hypnotized and getting strong across two chairs but it has nothing to do whatsoever with the actual state hypnosis and the last premise is that the trance itself will be characterized by a neurological state that is a lower level of control less inhibition and a reduction in the amount of reality testing if you distill down to what characterizes hypnosis or trance as opposed to the normal state there are three overriding characteristics number one they are at a lower level of control if you tell a person in hypnosis you are stuck like glued to the seat of your chair and they accept that suggestion they don't get out of the chair they don't reality test but the fact of the matter is there is still no accepted theory here's where they are today in terms of experimentation it's actually a very exciting period of time they started using MRIs and PET scans about 10 years ago and the leading researcher in that direction is David Spiegel which is kind of cool because I met his father on three different occasions his dad was Herbert Spiegel and herb Spiegel from Columbia was one of the great forerunners in the 70s came out with some really classic studies he's the one that gave us the eye roll first one that kind of identified the eye roll and to notice it he developed what we called the grade five syndrome he started characterizing good subjects in terms of personality characteristics he was really a pioneer in many senses in terms of moving hypnosis forward and his son has picked up the mantle and now is using PET scans and MRIs but here's what they're doing and here's where I think they're going wrong I've read most of Spiegel studies and I have been in communication with him I have sent in emails which he has been kind enough to answer and what they're doing they're all excited about it is they're going with MRIs and they are taking a control group and asking them to do certain mental tasks while they are in an MRI and then they take the highly hypnotizable groups what I think is a mistake on their part is they're testing only the really good hypnotic subjects not top 5% there might be something weird about that group that doesn't apply to the other 95% you're certainly going to get the most dramatic responses and the cleanest responses but you are skewing your group and he will compare the highly hypnotizable with the average group and for the very first time we are finding very real measurable differences they are finding for example that when a person is in hypnosis there are increases in certain networks in the brain let me explain the brain is a very complicated machine and when you do almost anything it's not a single part of the brain that lights up it's a variety of parts of the brain that would be involved let's say in locomotion or if you were low cuting if you were speaking if you're smelling something it's not just one part of the brain so what they've done is they've organized these parts of the brain into what they call networks and they have one that they call the executive control Network when you are making decisions the other one is the default mode Network which which surprised them because they put people on on MRI machines and they told them just a lie they're still relax your entire body and they saw this whole network start lighting up they expect this thing to slow down they saw a bunch of stuff lighting up and they call that the default mode Network and then they have a salience network where if you doing something solving creative problems they've identified networks and when they put these hypnotic subjects on the MRI compared to a control group there are very real differences I'll tell you exactly I don't want to misrepresent their think so I'll tell you exactly what they're finding and you will find this particular thing repeated in most of their experiments they see a decrease in activity in the default mode Network default mode Network is when you're lying at rest you're not supposed to be doing anything the hypnotized subjects see a lower amount of activity than the control group measurable lower they see greater functional connectivity between the executive control Network and the salience Network just threw me for a loop because I'm not familiar with all the new terms and when they say that you see greater functional connectivity between the salience and the executive control I assume that to mean there's more connections going on right that's not really what it means it turns out functional connectivity could be any kind of the the connection could go from the executive control to the thalamus to the hypothalamus and then to the salience network and they consider that an increase in connectivity that's functional connectivity as opposed to real connectivity but when I see an increase in connectivity from the state from the point of view of mutual inhibition I would expect that that connectivity is what's tamping things down or releasing things in mutual inhibition you have to have connections to tell it to go down or go up so interpreting it from a mutual from mutual inhibition point of view that's what I would expect that's not how they're interpreting it they're interpreting it as a different level of connectivity they're looking at all as excitatory mechanisms and it turns out you can have some nervous systems that are mutually exciting when one fires it causes the other to fire which causes the other to fire that's mutual excitation I'm talking about mutual inhibition one fires the other goes down what would you expect to see you would expect to see an increase in one and a decrease in the other that's exactly what they are finding they're not finding new systems firing in other words they're not saying a person in hypnosis versus a control group the control group is finding this this and this part the hypnosis group is firing a different part that's not what's happening they're far in the same exact parts but they're saying increases and decreases and more connectivity between certain parts that is what you would expect to find if it was mutual inhibition not if you were seeing mutually exciting systems so that I believe adds as a support to my theory and that is how they are interpreting all of their studies very first thing I did is I went to Google and I googled hypnosis and mutual inhibition nothing came up so I googled you know mutually inhibitory circuits very little came up animal experiments the things they're still doing I spent hours every combination of words I could think of and I finally stumbled onto the Harvard study I could not find anything in on Google that talked about mutual inhibition and hypnosis and I was coming to the conclusion maybe it went nowhere maybe it was a theory that died maybe you know they did the animal studies and it never transmitted maybe it was just a bad idea I mean here we are last I heard of it was in the 70s it looks like nothing became of it and then I stumbled into the Harvard study and the Harvard study changed everything because the Harvard study of 2010 they called it the flip-flop theory of sleep instead of calling it mutual inhibition they called it the flip-flop I'll show you the study and I'll show you why it is so foundational to what I'm doing the Harvard sleep study did exactly what Dave wolken predicted they looked at sleep and they said that when an animal goes to sleep it looks like you're turning something off this is it but you're actually turning something on so this is a big description and then they talk about the actual act of going to sleep it might take some people 15 or 20 minutes or even longer to get to sleep but and they fall asleep it's usually a couple of seconds at most the actual act of falling asleep is very quick sometimes in milliseconds so quick you can't even be conscious of it if you ever tried to be aware of going to sleep so they start out by saying just like woke and and predicted you know this is not turning something off it's very much turning something on and then down here I love them they start talking about mutually inhibiting systems what you have they for the first time I saw it referenced going to sleep waking up is active mutual inhibition the system's fire against each other and there's a switch involved and that's why they call it sleep switching Theory also known as the flip flop theory of sleep and they go into a big long description of it which is basically exactly almost word-for-word what dr. Warren was telling me back in 1976 they would eventually find they found it because they they annotate it fully they give all the background research this is probably what's happening in hypnosis if you ever saw a person in going into hypnosis think about our hypnotic induction is the old classic ones pick a spot take up deep breaths concentrate I'm going to start counting backwards ten nine at some point you'll often see the person and then when they go it's very quick the switch has been thrown it is very similar to what you see in sleep very similar to what these guys are describing and this is what I think the foundation of hypnosis is I think consciousness inhibits hypnosis if this is a mutual inhibiting system they should be looking for the switch that's and here's where the switch is going to be in all likelihood most of the switches that have been found in humans are located in the lateral hypothalamus that's why teitelbaum started out with a lateral hypothalamic syndrome the hypothalamus seems to have a lot going on there's also stuff happening in the amygdala but in all likelihood they should be looking at the hypothalamus so I'm so gonna propose some experiments this is what I think it is I think it's mutual inhibition I think this will give you all the background you read this anybody who understands hypnosis will read this study and say yeah I could see how that applies maybe maybe that does apply to hypnosis maybe hypnosis is a mutually inhibiting system the next question is theories are fine anybody can come up with a theory is it testable yes this is testable I'm going to propose some experiments simple experiments if you want to know if it's real or not if you want to know if it's really mutual inhibition you should be able to find out in very short order you can for example put subjects in an MRI machine anybody again they're studying nothing but the super subjects right now they may be getting skewed results you can put Tim who announced to me I'm a terrible subject you could put anybody in an MRI machine have them lying there looking at a picture or something put a GoPro so that you're filming their eye movements and start asking them questions while they're in the MRI can you remember the name of youth grade teacher do you know how to spell the word acetylcholine can you recall who sat in front of you in eighth grade get them to recall and they will do exactly what Tim did they're gonna break eye contact they're gonna switch into the trance while they look for the answer chart when that happens with the GoPro go back and look at your MRI results here's what you're looking for if there's really a switch making this happen the switch lights up every time it lights up when they go into the trance it'll light up again when they come out of the trance every time you'll see beep-beep-beep every time you're not gonna see an increase in trance a decrease when they're out of trance you'll see the switch go off every single time and you should predict or you can predict it's going to be relatively few neurons the challenge there is we may not at this point in time have machines that are sensitive enough to find it it may take us a while before but if we do if the machines can find it you're gonna see a part of the brain light up every single time they rolled eyes back in their head that is probably your switch that's one test that could be done easily I challenge anybody watching this tape who's got access to an MRI machine to run that test if you don't like that test here's another test take your group of highly hypnotizable subjects give them a post-it notic suggestion that whenever I say a certain word or use a certain cue you will drop back into hypnosis again use your high suggestible so it'll have the highest number of connections in the most dramatic response get them conditioned to a posthypnotic suggestion lay them in an MRI and start putting them in and out and in and out of hypnosis and see if you can find one area that lights up every single time and if that one area beeps when they go in and when they go out when they go when they go out that is what you should be paying attention to that in all likelihood is where that mutually inhibiting switch is if you can locate that and more to the point if you can figure out how to manipulate it that changes the entire ballgame and you go back to the existing research as I did I went to every piece of research I could find and here's what I found and what I didn't find much of the research that's currently going on happens happening the last ten years it's very similar to Spiegel's research we found this area increasing this area decreasing nobody coming out with new areas that kind of conforms to mutual inhibition nobody is coming out with information or there are studies that are that are directly contradicting the mutual inhibition they don't even they don't even mention it and I believe that if you go back to some of these studies and look at their original source material look at their MRI studies that's which may be sitting there the whole time they may have simply ignored it not even known to look for didn't know what to make of it because in this one big study that Spiegel did one that he was most famous for and it's such a cool study was the color one don't even know the color experiment was take a piece of cardboard you have colored rectangles you show you put people on an MRI machine say he's not a good subject he's a control subject show it to him I was in an MRI take a look at the red rectangle look at the blue one look at the green one look at the yellow one his optic nerves are firing different parts of the brain are lighting up take a second group a control group not hypnotized take the color away now there's nothing but outlines of rectangles I'm when you'd open your eyes and imagine that this one's bright red imagine this one's blue imagine this one's green imagine this one's yellow totally different parts of the brain light up optic nerve isn't firing then take a group of highly hypnotized subjects and say to them when you open your eyes you'll see the upper-right one is bright red can you see it yeah it's bright red no the old ones blue yeah I see the bhoot tell that and there and the same parts of the brain that light up with the first group light up with a second indicating that these people are hypnotized are seeing something this is an imagination this is in conformity this isn't peer pressure they're seeing something that's a very famous experiment and you want to know if the last paragraph of the experiment is after they wrote it all up and I got famous and this is Spiegel himself talking they saw an increase in the left hemisphere which is exactly what they saw with the people who act the control group but they saw firing happening in the right hemisphere and basically he's saying we don't know what's happening they're saying we run we have no explanation for it we don't know what what they're seeing is the release that's the mutual inhibition part they're not even looking for it and so dr. Spiegel if you're watching this go try to find that if it's not there it's not there and I'm wrong if it is there the entire game changes I'll leave you with one last thought I got to be running out of time right now long do I have I got five minutes I'll finish the 385 minutes that I have with one more indirect supporting piece of information again I don't know how many of you folks know this but World War one was the first time that mechanized warfare was so horrific that literally people could not take it they checked out they experienced a state of mind that they termed shell-shocked these people would either go catatonic where they would not respond at all or they would go into a repetitive motion whatever it was and they could not control the repetitive motion there was no understanding of it there was no chemical or drug there was no treatment for it what treatment do you think they finally found that showed success hypnosis they called it's suggestive therapy well 99% of the soldiers that experience shell-shocked experienced it because they were in the trenches during prolonged bombardments the shell would blow up you know the flip flip flip going I could conjecture that as either breaking the switch you know exhausting the switch screwing up the switch they were locked in hypnosis why did hypnosis work as opposed to any other therapy all of our phrasings all the way we structure our suggestions all the way we communicate with people are all designed to communicate to a person in a trance in that simpler more descriptive way of communicating theoretically that's supportive of the notion of the switch they had somehow damaged the switch by repeat and it was only the people that got bombarded each time that seemed to all fake wound got stayed in a saint and then all of a sudden they got locked they couldn't get out and either exhausted or damaged the switch as a hypothetical now I have much much more to say about the theory of hypnosis if you take that premise I take it all the way back to its exception to its inception you can ask Reverend Mitchell I take it all the way back follow genetically why why did nature put that there why would that be there how is that adaptive to the survival of man and I have theories that take it all the way back literally to to the inception but I don't have background research on it there are no studies that have demonstrated I can't produce any numbers at that point I'm just conjecturing so I'm leaving that out but this part is real the studies are out there the numbers are numbers it's testable and if they run these tests they're either going to find it or they're not going to find it and if they find the switch well folks we have a new theory of hypnosis and one that's testable and one that might actually hold up to scrutiny and one that might actually dramatically change the field in which we find ourselves devoting our lives and studying if it's false well then I took my shot you know at least you know I mean and and you know there's someplace in the middle maybe I'm wrong and maybe it's certainly a different way of looking at it maybe I'll move the football one inch forward and somebody will come along who's smarter than me or it looks at it with the correct point of view and will pick up the ball and move it to the end line at least I will have moved the damn ball forward and at least my existence and my life devoted to this hopefully will have contributed something because I do believe this is a truly original idea that has never been put forth before and it's hard to find original ideas don't forget to see Jason Callahan next in his presentation he asked me to mention to you it's going to be great and he wanted you all to go to his so I promised that we'd mention it I'm done I'll be happy to answer any questions you have thank you so much [Applause] you

Channel: Anthony Galie

Views: 28,437

Keywords:

Id: lZvyCROHX18

Length: 36min 35sec (2195 seconds)

Published: Sat May 11 2019