Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
stereologist

Corona virus conspiracies

2,185 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-10/Top-academic-journals-refute-coronavirus-conspiracies-about-China-QnsVTRWt6U/index.html

Top academic journals refute coronavirus conspiracies about China

Quote

On May 4, a study published on Nature concluded that China had prevented millions people from contracting the virus by late February with three major measures – intercity traffic restrictions, early testing and monitoring of possible patients, and actively practicing social distancing and personal preventive actions. 

Without the strong combination of these measures, the number of COVID-19 cases in China could have increased 67 fold to more than seven million, the report said. 

Another right wing wacko conspiracy stomped on.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

More scientists weigh-in on the conspiracy which produced the coronavirus used in recent pandemic scare:

Scientists say COVID-19 may have been cooked up in lab

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/coronavirus/scientists-say-covid19-cooked-up-in-lab/news-story/242c5f9fd14f162dea67f166bcabd985

Meanwhile, proponents of the debunked "natural evolution" narrative try to swallow the lumps in their throats as they realize just how idiotic they now appear.

There seems to be almost nothing to support the tale that the virus was not natural.

The debunked claim is the sort of hogwash we'd expect to hear from right wing uneducated wackos like Rush Limbaugh and the village idiot and the toadies that kiss their backsides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

As we notice from the Telegraph article there is nothing there but scientists only saying that a lab can't be ruled out.

In fact, the 4 amino acid seequence they refer to was modeled as a poor candidate by all software. Now it is a great finding.

Quote

“We really don’t know where this virus came from - that’s the truth. The two possibilities is that it was a chance transmission of a virus...the other possibility is that it was an accidental release of the virus from a laboratory,” he said.

“One of the possibilities is that an animal host was infected by two coronaviruses at the same time and COVID-19. The same process can happen in a petri-dish.

“In other words COVID-19 could have been created from that recombination event in an animal host or it could have occurred in a cell-culture experiment.

Unlike the trash filth, this article actually uses Petrovsky's comments showing his position, not what the filth like the Washington Times wants to lie about.

 

What sort of a lie is the debunked claim? Let's see what the article states.

Quote

Leading immunologists and geneticists have told The Daily Telegraph there are two unusual aspects of COVID-19 that raise the possibility it was man-made rather than a naturally-occurring virus.

“There is no publicly available genetic evidence of cross-species transmission at the Huanan seafood market. But at the same time we cannot rule out the Huanan seafood market because we have not been able to analyse other data, eg, animal samples, from the market.”

She said human adaptation in nature and in a laboratory is possible.

“Did SARS-CoV-2 transmit across species into humans and circulate undetected for months prior to late 2019 while accumulating adaptive mutations?” she said.

“Or was SARS-CoV-2 already well adapted for humans while in bats or an intermediate species?

 

When right wing wackos have nothing to say they apparently turn to telling falsehoods. It's their nature to be untruthful or at least the evidence strongly suggests that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

The manner with which the virus is still allowed to spread is the stuff of nightmares for virologist who knows the deal. Sooner than later the variants of mutations is going to be perfected into a strain that is not only more infectious and contagious for longer periods but also exceptionally lethal, there's no better designer than mother nature in matters such as this. 

~

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, hacktorp said:

More scientists weigh-in on the conspiracy which created the 'novel' coronavirus used in recent pandemic scare:

Scientists say COVID-19 may have been cooked up in lab

Exclusive, Sharri Markson, The Daily Telegraph
June 1, 2020 12:58pm

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/coronavirus/scientists-say-covid19-cooked-up-in-lab/news-story/242c5f9fd14f162dea67f166bcabd985

Meanwhile, proponents of the debunked "natural evolution" narrative try to swallow the lumps in their throats as they realize just how idiotic they now appear.

@hacktorpNot being an Australian - and particularly not living in NSW - you'd be unaware just how much of a rag newspaper the Daily Telegraph actually is. Anything they claim - especially "exclusives" - are likely to be a right-wing media beat up.

They used to use the Daily Telegraph to wrap fish at the fish mongers but it made the fish stink too much.

Edited by Obviousman
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
3 hours ago, Obviousman said:

@hacktorpNot being an Australian - and particularly not living in NSW - you'd be unaware just how much of a rag newspaper the Daily Telegraph actually is. Anything they claim - especially "exclusives" - are likely to be a right-wing media beat up.

They used to use the Daily Telegraph to wrap fish at the fish mongers but it made the fish stink too much.

I looked it up and its one of Rupert Murdoch's papers and considered Australias least trusted news paper. On the other hand being a Murdoch paper this is probably exactly what Hacktorp would see as quality news. :whistle:

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-fr/eu-governments-ban-malaria-drug-for-covid-19-trial-paused-as-safety-fears-grow-idUSKBN2340A6

Quote

European governments moved on Wednesday to halt the use of anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients, and a second global trial was suspended, further blows to hopes for a treatment promoted by U.S. President Donald Trump.

The moves by France, Italy and Belgium followed a World Health Organization decision on Monday to pause a large trial of hydroxychloroquine due to safety concerns.

More countries have stopped using HCQ.

Quote

Italian health authorities concluded that the risks, coupled with little evidence hydroxychloroquine was beneficial against COVID-19, merited a ban outside of clinical trials.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

209. PETA UK claims that that COVID-19 is connected to eating meat.

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Posted (edited)

210. Alga does not cure the COVID-19 disease.

211. Sesame oil does not cure COVID-19.

Edited by stereologist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

208. The anti-vaxx movement has formed a conspiracy againt any possible COVID-19 vaccine.

https://news.yahoo.com/another-threat-looming-fight-against-103011679.html

 

EDIT: Good thing anti-vaxxers lack the ability to do anything (than kill other, innocent people).

—Jaylemurph

Edited by jaylemurph
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp

At the rate things are going, the only ones who will be left believing "God created the virus", is a tiny, ragtag band of UM faithful (excellent article):

The Case Is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin

By Jonathan Latham, PhD and Allison Wilson, PhD JUNE 2, 2020

Quote

This affinity is all the more remarkable because of the relative lack of fit in modelling studies of the SARS-CoV-2 spike to other species, including the postulated intermediates like snakes, civets and pangolins (Piplani et al., 2020). In this preprint these modellers concluded “This indicates that SARS-CoV-2 is a highly adapted human pathogen”.

Given the research and collection history of the Shi lab at WIV it is therefore entirely plausible that a bat SARS-like cornavirus ancestor of Sars-CoV-2 was trained up on the human ACE2 receptor by passaging it in cells expressing that receptor.

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 hours ago, hacktorp said:

At the rate things are going, the only ones who will be left believing "God created the virus", is a tiny, ragtag band of UM faithful (excellent article):

The Case Is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin

By Jonathan Latham, PhD and Allison Wilson, PhD JUNE 2, 2020

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/

The case is not there is it. One of the main points is that the virus has not been found in its reservoir.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_reservoir

The rest of the article contains much of the same information that has already been produced in this thread and the article matches up with most of what I have posted in this thread.

A big oversight in the article is that it does not mention that the hypothetical reservoirs are rarely identified. Consider the case of Ebola or Marberg. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola#Reservoir

Quote

The natural reservoir for Ebola has yet to be confirmed; however, bats are considered to be the most likely candidate.[58] Three types of fruit bats (Hypsignathus monstrosus, Epomops franqueti and Myonycteris torquata) were found to possibly carry the virus without getting sick.[82] As of 2013, whether other animals are involved in its spread is not known.[81] Plants, arthropods, rodents, and birds have also been considered possible viral reservoirs.

No one knows where Ebola comes from in the wild, yet it does. Ebola outbreaks have been identified since 1976. That means the natural reservoir has not been identified in 44 years. The article about coronavirus suggests that we have not found the reservoir in the last half year and that is a concern. I don't think so. It may take a while to identify it.

Is the case building that it was a lab escapee? Not really. This article simply brings together many of the issues, but overlooks some very important issues. It is one of  the few articles that does mention the possibility that it was contracted by someone on a collecting trip. I did point out earlier in this thread that twice people were quarantined due to potential exposures during sample collecting procedures on trips.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp

Yet another vax-bot canard, the "QT interval", falls hard.  Is anyone surprised?

WHO To Resume Hydroxychloroquine Trials After Lancet Cautions Over Dodgy Study

Quote

 

The World Health Organization announced on Wednesday that it would resume trials involving hydroxychloroquine after The Lancet issued a major disclaimer over a study which prompted the WHO to halt ongoing trials, according to AFP.

 

"Important scientific questions have been raised about data reported in the paper by Mandeep Mehra et al," reads the "expression of concern" from The Lancet.

"Although an independent audit of the provenance and validity of the data has been commissioned by the authors not affiliated with Surgisphere and is ongoing, with results expected very shortly, we are issuing an Expression of Concern to alert readers to the fact that serious scientific questions have been brought to our attention. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information."

-The Lancet

Before a nation of non-cardiologists, the media agonized over, of all things, the prolongation of the now infamous “QT interval,” and the risk of sudden cardiac death.  The FDA and NIH piled on, piously demanding randomized, controlled, double-blind studies before physicians prescribed HCQ.  No one mentioned that the risk of cardiac arrest was far higher from watching the Superbowl. Nor did the media declare that HCQ and chloroquine have been used throughout the world for half a century, making them among the most widely prescribed drugs in history with not a single reported case of “arrhythmic death” according to the sainted WHO and the American College of Cardiology.  Or that physicians in the field, on the frontlines, so to speak, based on empirical evidence, have found benefit in treating patients with a variety of agents including HCQZincAzithromycin, Quercetin, Elderberry supplements, Vitamins D and C with few if any complications.  Or that while such regimens may not cure, they may help and carry little or no risk.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/exposing-manufactured-disinformation-enabling-hydroxychloroquine-hysterics

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
7 hours ago, hacktorp said:

Yet another vax-bot canard, the "QT interval", falls hard.  Is anyone surprised?

WHO To Resume Hydroxychloroquine Trials After Lancet Cautions Over Dodgy Study

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/exposing-manufactured-disinformation-enabling-hydroxychloroquine-hysterics

Hacktorp, I have a compromised immune system, which suggests I'm more at risk from COVID-19 than the average adult.

When it comes to vaccines, treatments, cures and the like I'm going to go with the evidence. If the evidence says that HCQ or remdesivir is beneficial for me and my GP prescribes it, I'll take it. If the evidence says it isn't beneficial or it's dangerous, I won't take it. If a vaccine is developed and my GP recommends it, I'll take it. If my GP says the vaccine hasn't been properly tested yet and recommends against it, I won't take it. I'm perfectly as ease with the idea that something recommended one day might be recommended against the following day as new evidence comes to hand.

In other words, when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Peter B said:

In other words, when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?

I've found that facts themselves don't change so much as do people's interpretations of them.  While taking the advice of experts seems wise, it is really no substitute for informing one's self using facts gained from multiple sources in order to form one's own interpretation.  So much about pharmaceuticals today revolves around market share, promotion, and sales.  This fact is so important to understanding why certain drugs are pushed and how certain statistics are used to "inform" the public.

This is especially true on the subject of vaccines.  I don't know what caused your immune system to be compromised, but I've learned first-hand what sort of problems vaccines can cause and that they are often not recommended for people with compromised immune systems.

Taking any vaccine designed to trigger an immune response (dangerous for many people) doesn't seem smart for an immune-compromised person.  Not to mention not knowing the entire ingredient list, which could be frightening.

It is unfortunate, but today, it is 'caveat emptor' with medications, so we are largely responsible for ourselves.

Edited by hacktorp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph

 Hacktorp, do you honestly believe average citizen Joe —even if he dickers around “researching” on the internet — has a comparable understanding of medicine to a licensed, board-certified physician who’s spent years in med school and residency?

Genuine question. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
11 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

 Hacktorp, do you honestly believe average citizen Joe —even if he dickers around “researching” on the internet — has a comparable understanding of medicine to a licensed, board-certified physician who’s spent years in med school and residency?

Genuine question. 

—Jaylemurph 

As we've seen recently, licensed, board-certified physicians and research scientists do not even agree among themselves about how to interpret available "facts" surrounding medications and vaccines.  So your question is something of a false dichotomy, since clearly some physicians and researchers have a better fix on the truth than do others.  Many average citizen Joes can see this situation very plainly and decide to look more deeply into things for themselves.

As for average citizen Joes who only want to be told what to do by an 'expert', they can only hope the expert they pick gives a good recommendation.

It's sad, but the profit motive has obscured the hippocratic oath to a large degree, leaving citizens' health subject to the vagaries of the pharmaceutical marketplace.

But I do think things could change for the better since it appears the global(ist) nature of big pharma may be getting taken down to more localized systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 hours ago, hacktorp said:

I've found that facts themselves don't change so much as do people's interpretations of them.  While taking the advice of experts seems wise, it is really no substitute for informing one's self using facts gained from multiple sources in order to form one's own interpretation.  So much about pharmaceuticals today revolves around market share, promotion, and sales.  This fact is so important to understanding why certain drugs are pushed and how certain statistics are used to "inform" the public.

This is especially true on the subject of vaccines.  I don't know what caused your immune system to be compromised, but I've learned first-hand what sort of problems vaccines can cause and that they are often not recommended for people with compromised immune systems.

Taking any vaccine designed to trigger an immune response (dangerous for many people) doesn't seem smart for an immune-compromised person.  Not to mention not knowing the entire ingredient list, which could be frightening.

It is unfortunate, but today, it is 'caveat emptor' with medications, so we are largely responsible for ourselves.

You are correct. The facts have not changed. HCQ appears to not be efficacious in the treatment of COVID-19. No study has shown it to be. The fact you keep posting nonsense instead of evidence shows us that you have an agenda other than getting the facts right.

I don't believe this: " I've learned first-hand what sort of problems vaccines can cause" That is just more of your dishonesty.

This shows you have no idea what you are talking about: "Taking any vaccine designed to trigger an immune response" Not surprising considering how many laughable gaffes you have made concerning biology. 

Love this: "It is unfortunate, but today, it is 'caveat emptor' with medications"  It once was beware, but FDA regulations are preventing dangerous situations. Useless crap is now over at GNC and other stores.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
6 hours ago, hacktorp said:

As we've seen recently, licensed, board-certified physicians and research scientists do not even agree among themselves about how to interpret available "facts" surrounding medications and vaccines.  So your question is something of a false dichotomy, since clearly some physicians and researchers have a better fix on the truth than do others.  Many average citizen Joes can see this situation very plainly and decide to look more deeply into things for themselves.

As for average citizen Joes who only want to be told what to do by an 'expert', they can only hope the expert they pick gives a good recommendation.

It's sad, but the profit motive has obscured the hippocratic oath to a large degree, leaving citizens' health subject to the vagaries of the pharmaceutical marketplace.

But I do think things could change for the better since it appears the global(ist) nature of big pharma may be getting taken down to more localized systems.

Just because there are outliers promoting hoaxes that once were qualified doctors tells us little. There are outliers with bizarre ideas in all professions. The consensus and the evidence strongly supports the use of vaccines.

Vaccines are safe. Vaccines are cheap. Vaccines are not money makers for the companies that make them.

Here we have another laughable comment with no merit: "but the profit motive has obscured the hippocratic oath" Just another wacko position with no evidence to support it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931703

Quote

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) does not reduce the risk for infection in people exposed to patients with confirmed COVID-19, according to data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prevention trial.

The trial enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants from multiple sites in the United States and Canada. David R. Boulware, MD, MPH, from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and colleagues published their findings today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results are the latest among several studies to show negative results for HCQ in the setting of COVID-19.

This is the first study of its type to be completed.

  • randomized
  • double-blind
  • placebo controlled
  • large
Quote

However, side effects were more common among those in the HCQ group vs placebo (40.1% vs 16.8%), though no serious adverse reactions were reported.

Not only did HCQ lack efficacy but it also had side effects.

 

I recommend reading the article which includes the pros and cons of the study.

But once again we see HCQ does not appear to work.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The failure of HCQ in yet another study has India rethinking its plans.

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/jun/04/first-high-quality-study-to-assess-if-hcq-can-prevent-covid-19-shows-the-drug-doesnt-work-2152096.html

Quote

The findings of the high-quality trial carried out in the USA and published in the New England Medical Journal has shown that coronavirus infection rate was same in two control groups.

These results have major implications for India as in the country, the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, on the advice of the Indian Council of Medical Research has recommended HCQ prophylaxis for healthcare workers treating infected patients and household contacts of positive cases, exposed to the virus.

Getting the facts and making a plan based on the facts is important to people that want to take the correct action.

Quote

Back home, the ICMR has been under constant fire for recommending HCQ prophylaxis for Covid 19 without any evidence. Just a few days back, it had published findings of a case-control study, not considered very highly scientifically, in its own journal which said that healthcare workers who take at least six or more doses HCQ are better placed to avoid contracting COVID-19 than those who take none or lesser doses.

The Council, however, had drawn more flak for not coming clean on the issue of “conflict of interest” as two of the paper’s authors included senior ICMR office bearers who were also responsible for writing advisories on prophylaxis even without any evidence.

Looks like India needs someone like Fauci that states the case properly and does not kowtow to the politicians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410

Here is an observational study in the New England Journal of Medicine

Quote

Observational Study of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

Quote

Clinical guidance at our medical center has been updated to remove the suggestion that patients with Covid-19 be treated with hydroxychloroquine. In our analysis involving a large sample of consecutive patients who had been hospitalized with Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine use was not associated with a significantly higher or lower risk of intubation or death (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.32). The study results should not be taken to rule out either benefit or harm of hydroxychloroquine treatment, given the observational design and the 95% confidence interval, but the results do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine at present, outside randomized clinical trials testing its efficacy.

Another study, published a month ago, suggesting that HCQ is not useful.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I have to include this right wing wacko diatribe because it is so brain dead. In fact, it is so uneducated that it deserves a conspiracy number.

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/05/lies-about-hydroxychloroquine-like-lies-about-guns/#axzz6OOQH7WVy

212. The NEJM is conspiring to keep HCQ (and guns) out of people's hands.

Quote

We know that the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has, for decades, been spreading lies about guns and gun owners that harm the Second Amendment of our Constitution. The famous and highly respected NEJM cares more about financial gains, and the leftist politics of its editors, than the truth.

And now the NEJM appears to be colluding with Democrats and the MSM to boost fear of COVID-19, by minimizing the possible beneficial effects of HCQ.

The MSM are shamelessly and hysterically, claiming that HCQ is a killer.

You can always find the most bizarre ideas online. 

I claim the author of the site is an idiot. Let's see if I can provide the evidence to support that statement.

Quote

On May 7, 2020, the NEJM published a study about the use of HCQ to treat patients with COVID-19. Every word is accurate. But the researchers used people who went to emergency rooms and were then admitted to the hospital. So right from the beginning, selection bias was introduced into the research results because of the advanced stage of the disease in these patients.
 

So right there we see these morons can't read because that is not how the selection process was performed. The paper states that. Here is what the paper states.

Quote

We obtained samples from all admitted adults who had a positive test result for the virus SARS-CoV-2 from analysis of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab specimens obtained at any point during their hospitalization from March 7 to April 8, 2020.

Nothing about emergency rooms. Nothing about advanced state of the disease.

Let's see what other stupidity these clowns are spouting.

Quote

These studies are being used politically to drive the latest MSM narrative that tells Americans that HCQ is dangerous to take and that it doesn't work against COVID-19. Gov. Phil Murphy has virtually banned the drug in N.J. Many hospitals and physicians are no longer recommending it. And the World Health Organization, which covered up for China, is no longer researching HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19.

Nothing political in these studies. They all show HCQ is not effective. There is also associated risk. WHO is doing a study. So these clowns are not being truthful. They pretend that this is the work of the MSM. I guess they have to attack those showing these losers to be wrong and politically motivated.

The only article they can point to is the one from Raoult's group that was caught faking their data. Then the article becomes a cesspool of complaints about gun rights.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

But now let's look into a real story. Seems that the call by 140 researchers for the study of 96,000 people worldwide to come clean on their data is becoming a soap opera of sorts.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine#maincontent

Quote

A Guardian investigation can reveal the US-based company Surgisphere, whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model, has provided data for multiple studies on Covid-19 co-authored by its chief executive, but has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology.

Data it claims to have legitimately obtained from more than a thousand hospitals worldwide formed the basis of scientific articles that have led to changes in Covid-19 treatment policies in Latin American countries. It was also behind a decision by the WHO and research institutes around the world to halt trials of the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine. On Wednesday, the WHO announced those trials would now resume.

Two of the world’s leading medical journals – the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine – published studies based on Surgisphere data. The studies were co-authored by the firm’s chief executive, Sapan Desai.

Late on Tuesday, after being approached by the Guardian, the Lancet released an “expression of concern” about its published study. The New England Journal of Medicine has also issued a similar notice.

Read the entire article. There are several studies that have been apparently damaged by a person named Sapan Desai. All of the studies were sabotaged by what appears to be a phony patient database. This does not mean that HCQ is efficacious since most studies did not have Sapan Desai as a co-author.

Fortunately, science does not allow for fakery, hoaxes, and misrepresentations. Sapan Desai will end up on the heap just as Raoult did. 

 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.