Coronavirus


Peter

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't be surprised if basic incompetence isn't saving lives and helping to do less harm.

The handling and storage protocols for at least the mRNA formulations are pretty stringent and the formulations themselves are fragile outside of those strictures.

I hope what that means is that given the level of professionalism among staffing and state of storage equipment at the 'jab' clinics that , hopefully, a lot of the injections were inert.

I'm in my local Rite Aid quite frequently , the staff is very nice and as helpful as I would want, but guaranteed expert cryogenic handlers isn't a label I would faithfully attach to them , but nice people for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tmj said:

mRNA vaccine platforms are radically different than previous 'well' studied platforms , their use at this scale are truly 'experimental', the use of any leaky vaccine during the initial phase of a pandemic flies in the face of 'basic' virology. How is one supposed to reconcile that 'medicine' recommends the level of risk taking in using the novel platforms and especially against a pathogen with such a relatively low mortality rate?

T,

This is an important point.

There is nothing wrong with mRNA technology for vaccines per se. Ask Dr. Malone who invented this.

What's wrong is how this is being used. Also, ask Dr. Malone...

The best analogy I have found to illustrate this is about nuclear power. You can use nuclear power to light up a city or to blow the damn city up. 

It's an error to say "nuclear power is evil" just like it's an error to say "mRNA technology for vaccines is evil."

And for the record, I think using the current mNRA-based jabs on children is about as evil as it gets. This would be worse than the Marxist indoctrination that happened to American children in public schools, thus weeding super-thin an entire generation of Americans. Using current mNRA-based jabs on most all children would actually kill off or physically maim most of the upcoming generation.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't participate much in discussion of what Rand would have done, but I do have my druthers.

There is one thing I believe she would have blasted to the skies. The slogan "Trust the science" when used in propaganda. After all, she did create Dr. Robert Stadler.

When I let my mind drift about this, I come up with the following:

"Trust the science," says scientist, Dr. Josef Mengele.

:)

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't participate much in discussion of what Rand would have done, but I do have my druthers.

 

:)

Michael

Michael, call it a device. From innumerable sightings and readings of her prose and fiction, I think one can be consistent to Rand's philosophy while avoiding the presumption of speaking on her behalf. I invoked - is that evoked? - Rand, in the sense, not as much what Rand 'would have done', but what I am sure her philosophical principles would deliver in application to this situation and other circumstances. She and her philosophy are alike, they run close. For instance, unquestioned altruism, by her quite unique definition, has been the basis of what we are seeing happen in resulting measures to the pandemic. It's important to identify what altruism looks like in practice, if only for one's own understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

I wasn't criticizing anyone. I was merely stating my own position.

If you're interested, I came to this position after watching innumerable debates going to the hostile level over what Rand would have done or thought. And the sides were polar opposites. In problem-solving mode, I wondered how this could be fixed seeing how she wasn't around anymore to shed light.

The only solution I came to was to be clear about the part Rand wrote or said and my own position.

That works for me.

But I get why people do channel Rand, or try to. It's a human nature thing to emulate idols, then incorporate them. I will not criticize someone for being human. :) 

But for my life, I have dispensed with a huge amount of my own cognitive dissonance by simply owning my own words and thoughts. And many of them, admittedly, come from my familiarity with Rand's work. I own that, too.

But, in the end, I like being me. I would hate being Rand. That means I would have had to sleep with Frank and Nathaniel and neither are my type.

:) 

Michael

  • Thanks 1
  • Smile 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tmj said:

Do you really think Rand would indulge in floating abstractions? " what medicine recommends"?

I would also add, "What her doctor recommends." I get the impression about a half dozen people who share on this platform would not listen to their doctor because it does not jibe with their politics / alt reading / etc. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mark said:

Trump again boasts that he is responsible for the mRNA vaccines.  When Nigel Farage of GB News interviewed him at his Mar-a-Lago home:

“I brought the country to a level its never seen before, then we had Covid come in, then I brought it back, came up with vaccines that you're using, we’re all using, the world is using.”

Full video at YouTube:

[2021] The safety of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines: a review

[2018] mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology

Edited by william.scherk
Added two links
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From one of the articles listed by William: Development of a vaccine to combat COVID-19 has been of paramount importance since the onset of the pandemic [2]. The scope of this review focuses on the safety and efficacy of the Moderna and Pfizer/ BioNTech mRNA vaccines exclusively. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (BNT162b2) trial reported that the vaccine had 95 % efficacy [29]. The trial enlisted a total of 43,548 adult volunteers, with half of the participants receiving a placebo injection, and the other half receiving the actual vaccine. end quote

Data like this is why my VA doctors chose Pfizer. So . . . . are you convinced yet? Peter

Notes. From:   R. Christian Ross Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 7:06 AM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Rationality Principle "It is impossible that two equally rational people, i.e. two people in possession of the (same) data, having equal facility in (deductive) logic, should disagree with each other about what conclusions or interpretations rationality requires. To think otherwise is to call into question such 'obligatory ideals' as Objectivity, Truth, Knowledge (universality and necessity) and Methodological Objectivity/Justification." The author of the essay continues to ask related questions such as, "Are all rational people essentially alike?" and "Is whim the only alternative to rationality?"...

From: RogerEBissell To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Rational Animal Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 11:23:05 EST Brant Gaede wrote: >I don't think man is the rational animal.  I think man is the would be, could be, should be rational animal and that if rational his rationality exists along a continuum of less to more rational.  And thinking rationally is only one step. He (she, pardon me) then must act rationally (morally) to actually be rational.

Brant, this is not what Aristotle and Rand meant by "the rational animal." Rand clearly explained this in her writings, particularly in her chapter on definitions in "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology." She meant ~not~ that humans differ from animals by invariably ~using~ reason, but by having the ~capacity~ (which animals do not have) to use reason.

As an aside: I have noticed a tendency in stating definitions to stray from the Aristotelian-Randian formula of genus-and-differentia. The order is quite important, and not at all a formalistic irrelevance. If you say man is "the rational animal" -- which is differentia first, then genus -- it is all too easy to draw the false implication that active use of reason is an invariable trait of humans. At least, that is what I see, time and time again, in discussion of Rand's/Aristotle's definition of man. Instead, do the extra mental step and put the definition in "standard" (genus-then-differentia) form, and you'll see the meaning with greater clarity. Man is the animal (genus) with rationality (the capacity to engage in reason) -- not man is the animal (genus) with invariably rational behavior. (Another aside: this approach can be used with benefit on ~other~ definitions, too -- e.g., government.)

I am not trying to pick on Brant here. It's just that, like others, he interprets "rational" and "rationality" in the sense of ~actual~ behavior, rather than the ~potential~, the ~capacity~, which is the fundamental attribute from which rational actions can (but do not always) flow. Hope this helps. More later, especially in response to Ellen Moore's helpful post. Roger

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
6 hours ago, tmj said:

mRNA vaccine platforms are radically different than previous 'well' studied platforms , their use at this scale are truly 'experimental', the use of any leaky vaccine during the initial phase of a pandemic flies in the face of 'basic' virology. How is one supposed to reconcile that 'medicine' recommends the level of risk taking in using the novel platforms and especially against a pathogen with such a relatively low mortality rate??

This is an important point.

There is nothing wrong with mRNA technology for vaccines per se. Ask Dr. Malone who invented this.

What's wrong is how this is being used. Also, ask Dr. Malone...

Ask Doctor Malone ... from an article by Tom Bartlett at The Atlantic:

Quote

Whether Malone really came up with mRNA vaccines is a question probably best left to Swedish prize committees, but you could make a case for his involvement.  When I called Malone at his 50-acre horse farm in Virginia, he directed me to a 6,000-word essay written by his wife, Jill, that lays out why he believes himself to be the primary discoverer. “This is a story about academic and commercial avarice,” it begins. The document’s tone is pointed, and at times lapses into all-caps fury. She frames her husband as a genius scientist who is “largely unknown by the scientific establishment because of abuses by individuals to secure their own place in the history books.”

The abridged version is that when Malone was a graduate student in biology in the late 1980s at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, he injected genetic material—DNA and RNA—into the cells of mice in hopes of creating a new kind of vaccine. He was the first author on a 1989 paper demonstrating how RNA could be delivered into cells using lipids, which are basically tiny globules of fat, and a co-author on a 1990 Science paper showing that if you inject pure RNA or DNA into mouse muscle cells, it can lead to the transcription of new proteins. If the same approach worked for human cells, the latter paper said in its conclusion, this technology “may provide alternative approaches to vaccine development.”

One of folks who may find 'places in this history books' is Kati Kariko, featured in these stories:

From Stat: The story of mRNA: How a once-dismissed idea became a leading technology in the Covid vaccine race

From CTVNews:  'To be a scientist is a joy': How a Hungarian biochemist helped revolutionize mRNA

From Glamour: The Scientist Who Saved the World

From Penn Medicine: 

 

Spoiler

Shownotes/Description:

This is the story of how two scientists became mRNA vaccine pioneers, helped develop the first COVID vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, and are changing the future of medicine.

For years, Katalin Karikó, PhD and Drew Weissman, MD, PhD worked in their Penn Medicine lab, trying to figure out what made mRNA so inflammatory. They did experiment after experiment, examined the data, and refined their approach based on the results. Then in 2005, they discovered the solution they were searching for: By encapsulating the mRNA in a certain lipid, it prevented inflammation and allowed the fragile mRNA to go to work without interference.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, it propelled Karikó and Weissman’s mRNA technology into the mainstream, where it became the foundation for two COVID vaccines. The critical discovery and success of the COVID vaccines kicked off a flurry of mRNA vaccine research, had has led to the development of vaccines for conditions like HIV, herpes, sickle cell anemia, influenza, peanut allergies, and even cancer.

Karikó and Weissman have received the world’s most prestigious awards for their discovery, including the Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award, the Breakthrough Prize and the Albany Medical Center Prize in Medicine and Biomedical Research.

Learn more about mRNA vaccine history and breakthroughs at Penn:

https://www.pennmedicine.org/mrna

-- Kati Kariko is mentioned in the Bartlett article:

Spoiler

One target of Malone’s ire, the biochemist Katalin Karikó, has been featured in multiple news stories as an mRNA-vaccine pioneer. CNN called her work “the basis of the Covid-19 vaccine” while a New York Times headline said she had “helped shield the world from the coronavirus.” None of those stories mentioned Malone. “I’ve been written out of the history,” he has said. “It’s all about Kati.” Karikó shared with me an email that Malone sent her in June, accusing her of feeding reporters bogus information and inflating her own accomplishments. “This is not going to end well,” Malone’s message says.

Karikó replied that she hadn’t told anyone that she is the inventor of mRNA vaccines and that “many many scientists” contributed to their success. “I have never claimed more than discovering a way to make RNA less inflammatory,” she wrote to him. She told me that Malone referred to himself in an email as her “mentor” and “coach,” though she says they’ve met in person only once, in 1997, when he invited her to give a talk. It’s Malone, according to Karikó, who has been overstating his accomplishments. There are “hundreds of scientists who contributed more to mRNA vaccines than he did.”

Malone insists that his warning to Karikó that “this is not going to end well” was not intended as a threat. Instead, he says, he was suggesting that her exaggerations would soon be exposed. Malone views Karikó as yet another scientist standing on his shoulders and collecting plaudits that should go to him. Others have been rewarded handsomely for their work on mRNA vaccines, he says. (Karikó is a senior vice president at BioNTech, which partnered with Pfizer to create the first COVID-19 vaccine to be authorized for use last year.) Malone is not exactly living on the streets: In addition to being a medical doctor, he has served as a vaccine consultant for pharmaceutical companies.

In any case, it’s clear enough that Malone isn’t singularly responsible for mRNA vaccines. The process of achieving major scientific advancements tends to be more cumulative and complex than the apple-to-the-head stories we usually tell, but this much can be said for sure: Malone was involved in groundbreaking work related to mRNA vaccines before it was cool or profitable; and he and others who believed in the potential of RNA-based vaccines in the 1980s turned out to be world-savingly correct.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And don’t leave out the most common reason that there is, to get a vaccine: to not get the disease and feel sick. Even younger people with no preexisting conditions should weigh the scales. Sick. Slightly sick with a sniffle. Not sick. In jeopardy. Not in jeopardy. Which is riskier, getting a shot or not getting a shot?

I think my Dad was stationed in San Diego when the polio vaccine came out. I saw kids with polio, and many of them had to wear braces. For me, getting the polio shot was a no brainer.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

Rather that go through all that stuff you just posted to find out what some fake news reporter at the the lefty-rag The Atlantic thinks of Dr. Malone, I think it would be far more interesting to find out what the main scientists who worked on the mNRA idea think of him. And not from any information provided by The Atlantic dude. 

But I'm not invested right now in contesting Dr. Malone's credibility, so finding that out, while interesting, is pretty far down on my priority list.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

some fake news reporter at the the lefty-rag The Atlantic

Prejudgement Rules! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dying COVID-19 Patient Recovers After Court Orders Hospital to Administer Ivermectin

 

2021-04-03_21.54.16.jpg
GAB.COM

Resist the Mainstream on Gab: '🔴 Dying COVID-19 Patient Recovers After Court Orders Hospital to Administer...

"An elderly COVID-19 patient has recovered after a court order allowed him to be treated with ivermectin, despite objections from the hospital in which he was staying, according to the family’s attorney.

"After an Illinois hospital insisted on administering expensive remdesivir to the patient and the treatment failed, his life was saved after a court ordered that an outside medical doctor be allowed to use the inexpensive ivermectin to treat him, over the hospital’s strenuous objections."

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Prejudgement Rules! 

William,

For The Atlantic? Absolutely.

I don't want to waste my time and they've earned their reputation from the things I have read from over there.

The Atlantic is trash mixed in with a fact or two once in a while.

 

Here's an image for you. If you take a bottle of fine wine and put just a teaspoon of sewage in it, you spoil the whole bottle. Right?

Well, what if you have a bottle of sewage and put just a teaspoon of fine wine in it?

Nothing changes.

That second is basically my view of The Atlantic.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think it would be far more interesting to find out what the main scientists who worked on the mNRA idea think of him.

It's a thought ...

39 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...
Mind you, this is not some "crazy, right-wing alt-news site", but MSN.com and The Telegraph...

%7BScientists discover ‘smoking gun’ link between AstraZeneca vaccine and lethal blood clots

The biological process that leads to lethal blood clots in some people after the AstraZeneca jab has been found, researchers believe.

The biological process that leads to lethal blood clots in some people after the AstraZeneca jab has been found, researchers believe. 

%7B © Yves Herman/Reuters A medical worker prepares a dose of Oxford/AstraZeneca's Covid-19 vaccine at a vaccination centre - Yves Herman/Reuters

Scientists at Cardiff University discovered that a protein in blood likes to bind to part of the vaccine, which can lead to dangerous clotting.

Intriguingly, the reaction is not caused by the coronavirus particles contained in the vaccine, but the system used to deliver it inside the body.

The AstraZeneca vaccine encapsulates coronavirus genetic material inside a weakened version of the common cold virus - known as an adenovirus, which infects chimpanzees.

The new study shows that adenovirus attracts a protein called “platelet factor four” to it like a magnet. 

This new hybrid protein-virus confuses the immune system, which creates new antibodies, which themselves stick to the proteins, triggering the formation of dangerous blood clots.

The process happens only rarely, explaining why few people are affected by the condition.  

The clots have been linked to 73 deaths out of 50 million doses of AstraZeneca in the UK.

(read more below)

WWW.MSN.COM

Scientists discover ‘smoking gun’ link between AstraZeneca vaccine and lethal blood clots

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThatGuy said:

The new study shows that adenovirus attracts a protein called “platelet factor four” to it like a magnet. 

This new hybrid protein-virus confuses the immune system, which creates new antibodies, which themselves stick to the proteins, triggering the formation of dangerous blood clots.

The prChAdOx1 interacts with CAR and PF4 with implications for thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndromeocess happens only rarely, explaining why few people are affected by the condition.  

The clots have been linked to 73 deaths out of 50 million doses of AstraZeneca in the UK.

The full text of the cited study is available Science Advances

ChAdOx1 interacts with CAR and PF4 with implications for thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome

 

keyimage.gif
WWW.SCIENCE.ORG

We observe previously unknown interactions between clinically important adenovirus vector capsids, platelet factor 4, and CAR.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

The new study shows that adenovirus attracts a protein called “platelet factor four” to it like a magnet.

This is ridiculous... There was a team of doctors (including Dr Byram Bridle) who recommended Canada not approve the AZ vaxx due to platelets binding back in January, who were ignored and the vaxx was approved until too many people started having blood clots.

 

It's almost a year later and this is a discovery?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2021 at 9:17 AM, ThatGuy said:

But then, re: the latter:

"Forbes stealth-edits article explaining ‘yes, the vaccine changes your DNA’"

"A Forbes article that takes aim at 'anti-vaxxers' for claiming that the COVID-19 vaccine “changes your DNA” — arguing that technically it does and that’s a good thing — had its headline changed without explanation to emphasize that the vaccines 'don’t alter your DNA."

and

"No editor’s note or other explanation for the change was given by Forbes. While the original headline summarized Salzberg’s argument, the new headline appears to slightly contradict what he wrote."

TG,

Here's another article about that.

brano-QSuou3VAtf4-unsplash-scaled.jpg
WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

In an article published by Forbes on Monday, the mainstream media admitted that COVID vaccines change your DNA but only indirectly and that is a good thing. Forbes published an article from Steven Salzberg...

:)

The mainstream press will say anything at any time.

Truth and fact no object. Lies work, too.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Peter said:

From one of the articles listed by William: Development of a vaccine to combat COVID-19 has been of paramount importance since the onset of the pandemic [2]. The scope of this review focuses on the safety and efficacy of the Moderna and Pfizer/ BioNTech mRNA vaccines exclusively. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (BNT162b2) trial reported that the vaccine had 95 % efficacy [29]. The trial enlisted a total of 43,548 adult volunteers, with half of the participants receiving a placebo injection, and the other half receiving the actual vaccine. end quote

Data like this is why my VA doctors chose Pfizer. So . . . . are you convinced yet? Peter

That's a bullet point, not significant data at all. Here's a comment from another article in reference to that study:

Quote

The number of severe cases of Covid-19 (one in the vaccine group and nine in the placebo group) is too small to draw any conclusions about whether the rare cases that occur in vaccinated persons are actually more severe. For practical reasons, the investigators relied on trial participants to report symptoms and present for testing. Since reactogenicity was more common in vaccine recipients, it is possible that they were less inclined to believe that minor symptoms were due to Covid-19 and therefore less likely to refer themselves for testing. And some important data, such as the rate of asymptomatic disease (as measured by seroconversion to a viral nucleoprotein that is not a component of the vaccine), have not yet been reported.

But even if it was legitimately 95% effective, there are still many reasons to doubt its safety--or more precisely it's cost/benefit based on demographic. And the vaccine has been shown to illicit an antibody response; that is without question. However, antibodies alone are not how our immune system fights off pathogens. Again, there are reasons to question this vaccine in terms of how long that protection lasts in comparison to natural immunity which includes memory B cells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Ask Doctor Malone ... from an article by Tom Bartlett at The Atlantic:

...

...and?

Dr. Malone was all over the Wikipedia page for mRNA vaccine technology before he spoke out against the current vaccines. We already know people don't like him. That article did admit he discovered the delivery system, being lipid particles, but it's just another journalist cowardly attacking someone with minimal facts and plenty of opinions and posturing.

And what does any of the stuff about Dr. Karikó have to do with Malone? Nobody is trying to credit Malone with her work...

I don't know what anyone could possibly take away from that article except feeling a connection with the author if they share the same enmity for Dr. Malone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dglgmut said:
4 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

The new study shows that adenovirus attracts a protein called “platelet factor four” to it like a magnet.

This is ridiculous... [...]

It's almost a year later and this is a discovery?

It shows the actual "culprit" molecular mechanism. If anything we might utter praise at the inventive scientists who collaborated to figure out a mechanism.  Ridicule might be contra-indicated.

56 minutes ago, Dglgmut said:
5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Ask Doctor Malone ... from an article by Tom Bartlett at The Atlantic:

...

...and?

Read a couple or more or all quotes from Malone in the article and find out what he has to say about Kariko and how he views his departure from grad school and who fucked him over in the following years. Read the story from his wife. 

56 minutes ago, Dglgmut said:

And what does any of the stuff about Dr. Karikó have to do with Malone? 

He talks about her in the cited Atlantic article.  For some people she is a diligent worker while he is more of a crank.

56 minutes ago, Dglgmut said:

I don't know what anyone could possibly take away from that article except feeling a connection with the author if they share the same enmity for Dr. Malone.

Assessing some of the reasons for enmity (or doubt) might place a Dr Malone fan in a better-informed position. And perhaps not everyone who reads at OL is firmly in the camp of "mRNA vaccines are evil/pseudo/ineffective/death-tainted suicide injections" ...

The more you know ...

I don't mean to be offensive. It's just a fact that there are at least two consolidated opinions about Robert Malone and his authority.  If one body can be ridiculed, then so can the others. Ridicule is a harsh, even abrasive kind of critique, but done with panache it can be more effective than grizzling and imputing. 

 

Edited by william.scherk
I opened the gate to some blazing ridicule/tightened up some language
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

For some people she is a diligent worker while he is more of a crank.

William,

Just to make sure a point doesn't go unnoticed (seeing how modern political bullies prefer that their bullying go unnoticed), let's notice something.

There is a very common complaint among experts and darlings of the left it all fields when they challenge the core agenda and narrative being promoted at the time.

Suddenly, they are crackpots, racists, and so on.

 

I just finished a book called The Story Paradox by Jonathan Gottschall (the guy who wrote The Storytelling Animal), who is avowedly a leftie, and even though he expresses a leftie perspective in his book, he also challenged some leftie narratives. So he also wrote in his book that he is deathly afraid of being canceled and attacked by his own side for doing this, but he has to plow forth.

But the most flagrant example is President Trump. Before he became president, the left, especially as pertains to blacks, loved him. He constantly received praise and even awards from the "establishment" black community. Once he became president, the press deemed him a racist and it's been that way ever since.

This story has happened to countless people. This also happened to Dr. Malone. Blanking it out doesn't make it go away. And blanking it out does not excuse the bullying. 

 

So the "some people" you refer to who think Dr. Malone is a crank are the kinds of people who change their views depending on the political agenda of the people they like. And they don't mind bullying their targets.

I can't give these folks any credibility at all in terms of evaluating merit.

I prefer people who go with science, not bullies and zealots who use science as their schtick to get power and unearned money. Sometimes sex, too.

I gotta hand it to them, though. Some of them get plenty of money, power and sex.

Some of them even like sex with little kids... :evil:  :) 

Michael

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now