Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby alloneword » Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:36 pm

liminalOyster » Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:16 pm wrote:It's possible I'm not entirely following you but if I'm reading your post correctly, the only thing *shown* by this data is that vax efficacy against Omicron is piss-poor...

.. it still looks to my eye like we're not seeing much more here than a major increase in cases due to the vax not working against Omicron.

The data shows a negative efficacy. Worse than 'piss poor', even worse than 'not working'.

It shows that it's doing the exact opposite of what a 'vaccine' is supposed to do, in that those who took it are more likely to become 'infected' than those who did not.

El gato's 'working hypothesis' concerns why this is the case.
User avatar
alloneword
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:19 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:47 pm

Max Blumenthal in a long and extremely thought provoking interview with Fabio Vighi, professor of economics.

https://rokfin.com/stream/10005/Foreign ... y-of-Covid
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby MacCruiskeen » Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:55 pm

The poisons are in the injections, not in any tiny invisible airborne killer-dots. Those poison injections are all the more effective because the recipients had already been debilitated both psychically and somatically by month after month after month of panicmongering, disinformation, financial attrition, immobilisation & increased obesity, permanent uncertainty, suppressed anger, gradual resignation & passivity & learned helplessness, intensified screen-addiction, restricted breathing, fear of fresh air, and separation from other human beings & from the natural world.

It's not exactly a fitness regime.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:38 am

alloneword » 20 Jan 2022 10:36 wrote:
liminalOyster » Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:16 pm wrote:It's possible I'm not entirely following you but if I'm reading your post correctly, the only thing *shown* by this data is that vax efficacy against Omicron is piss-poor...

.. it still looks to my eye like we're not seeing much more here than a major increase in cases due to the vax not working against Omicron.

The data shows a negative efficacy. Worse than 'piss poor', even worse than 'not working'.

It shows that it's doing the exact opposite of what a 'vaccine' is supposed to do, in that those who took it are more likely to become 'infected' than those who did not.

El gato's 'working hypothesis' concerns why this is the case.


That's not how what he's talking about (OAS) works tho.

Or, if it is, its not just the vaccine that causes the problem, but even so it still doesn't seem to be the case.

Omicron infections seem to last for a shorter period. They seem to have shorter periods between infection and infectiousness, quicker recoveries generally (even among the previously vaccinated or previously infected) ie shorter infectious periods as well as shorter periods of infection.

OAS refers to earlier immune confusing and inhibiting responses to slight changes in viruses.

If it were a happening here you'd expect to see longer periods of infection in the previously vaccinated and worse outcomes generally wouldn't you?
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby liminalOyster » Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:40 am

alloneword » Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:36 pm wrote:
liminalOyster » Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:16 pm wrote:It's possible I'm not entirely following you but if I'm reading your post correctly, the only thing *shown* by this data is that vax efficacy against Omicron is piss-poor...

.. it still looks to my eye like we're not seeing much more here than a major increase in cases due to the vax not working against Omicron.

The data shows a negative efficacy. Worse than 'piss poor', even worse than 'not working'.

It shows that it's doing the exact opposite of what a 'vaccine' is supposed to do, in that those who took it are more likely to become 'infected' than those who did not..


Repeating myself here but I literally do not observe that in the data presented. Hence why I'm asking if I'm reading it correctly. I am interpreting that he's just looking at case growth and showing that recent case growth among the vaccinated is much, much greater than among the unvaccinated. If there had been relatively stable case loads of Delta among the unvaxxed, I'm not clear there would/should be a giant increase for Omicron reflected here.

If I'm misunderstanding where the data clearly shows probability of infection being higher, please enlighten me. I'll look again but I don't see this data proving the suggested negative efficacy (nor am I arguing that's unlikely or impossible which is *why* I think the antigenic imprinting hypothesis is interesting, if such is the case ).
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:25 pm

liminalOyster » Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:40 pm wrote:
alloneword » Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:36 pm wrote:
liminalOyster » Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:16 pm wrote:It's possible I'm not entirely following you but if I'm reading your post correctly, the only thing *shown* by this data is that vax efficacy against Omicron is piss-poor...

.. it still looks to my eye like we're not seeing much more here than a major increase in cases due to the vax not working against Omicron.

The data shows a negative efficacy. Worse than 'piss poor', even worse than 'not working'.

It shows that it's doing the exact opposite of what a 'vaccine' is supposed to do, in that those who took it are more likely to become 'infected' than those who did not..


Repeating myself here but I literally do not observe that in the data presented. Hence why I'm asking if I'm reading it correctly. I am interpreting that he's just looking at case growth and showing that recent case growth among the vaccinated is much, much greater than among the unvaccinated. If there had been relatively stable case loads of Delta among the unvaxxed, I'm not clear there would/should be a giant increase for Omicron reflected here.

If I'm misunderstanding where the data clearly shows probability of infection being higher, please enlighten me. I'll look again but I don't see this data proving the suggested negative efficacy (nor am I arguing that's unlikely or impossible which is *why* I think the antigenic imprinting hypothesis is interesting, if such is the case ).


Can someone translate this post into English please. I literally do not observe any meaning in the language as presented.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:26 pm

.

Related to the last few replies:

https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/unboos ... -and-dying


Unboostered Brits Infected and Dying at Higher Rates than Unvaccinated

UKHSA Vaccine Efficacy Statistics: Week 3


The UK Health Security Agency has been condemned for months to report incredibly inconvenient vaccine efficacy statistics. How they have struggled. They have composed disclaimer after disclaimer. They filled a whole blog post with special pleading. They have greyed out the inconvenient numbers.

In their latest report, published just this evening, they’ve tried something new and bold. They now only calculate case, hospitalisation and death rates for the unvaccinated and the triple vaccinated. The double vaccinated have been banished entirely from Table 12. This will make the evil negative efficacy go away, right?

Ha, no:

Image

The numbers are unadjusted, it is true; much uncertainty surrounds the size of the unvaccinated population and therefore case rates within that group. What is more, these are cases, not true infection statistics. Nevertheless, res ipsa loquitur. It is not a great look.

In fact, the UKHSA have given us a great gift, in that they finally provide separate case and severe outcome statistics for the triple-vaccinated and the double vaccinated, allowing us to compare rates across all three groups. They don’t do that themselves, of course, but no matter. We can use the raw numbers and rates from last week’s report to derive the total number of double and triple vaccinated, and the rates in this week’s report to derive the triple vaccinated population. A little subtraction then gives us a decent estimate of how many double but not triple vaccinated people there are in each age bracket.

Here is the graph the UKHSA don’t want you to see:

Image

This is plainly a pandemic of the vaccinated.

The double vaccinated death rate is also a problem. You can tell this just from looking at the numbers in each category:

Image

The crucial 70+ demographic is over 90% boostered, and yet the very few double vaccinated in this cohort manage to match or exceed theeir death numbers.

The death rates have the double vaccinated worse than the unvaccinated in the 70+ cohort, and roughly matching the unvaccinated in the 60–69 group:

Image

This isn’t all that surprising, given that Public Health Scotland data has shown across-the-board negative efficacy for the unboostered for some weeks now:

Image
Image

This is also true of deaths, but beware of the extremely low numbers, particularly in the singly vaccinated:

Image


Comments:


Malenkiy Scot 58 min ago·edited 53 min ago
Liked by eugyppius

It is also important to note that the boosted have very low rates because of the statistical malpractice of not counting them as such until two weeks after the shot. (El Gato Malo among others has some posts on it.)

On one foot, what happens is that a boosted individual gets sick before the 2 week mark, he is counted as "unboosted", skewing the results - making vaxxed, but not boosted looking worse, and those who are boosted better. This is especially true with very high infection rates, when a large proportion of people gets sick within those 2 weeks.

[Actually, I just saw a similar comment already made, but still keeping this one]

Ki 2 hr ago
Liked by eugyppius

Begs the question that with each successive booster plus five to eight months of time, if the outcome for those immune systems gets even worse. In other words, will the people currently with three shots be in even worse shape than the two shots gang six months from now.


Barekicks 2 hr ago·edited 2 hr ago

So basically: is the vaccine wreaking havoc on your immune system and giving you short-term protection at the expense of increasing overall susceptibility in the long run? To maintain a base level of protection you'd have to boost every 20 weeks, which is unrealistic and absurd.

Fear 50 min ago
Right, but you won't tend to survive the Russian Roulette Clottery boosting that often. Eventually the adverse effects either kill or cripple you.


Turd burglar 46 min ago
This is the saddest part. You still have to play Russian Roulette, but each time there's one less chamber and still one bullet.

Fear 39 min ago
And the spikes are present up to a year, so cumulative damage is also likely if you get hot batches (not saline). So first round is a .22lr, second a .38 special, third a .45acp etc.... At some point fusion is involved....
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:42 pm

Sorry BS, whenever I try to look at your post I literally observe Rachel Maddow made completely out of wasps.

In other news:

It's a conspiracy theory because if there were ever to be such a thing, people would talk about it...


Case is lodged with the ICC (International Criminal Court) by the former vice president of Pfizer. People talking.

https://www.docdroid.com/file/download/ ... -1-pdf.pdf
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby alloneword » Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:47 pm

liminalOyster » Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:40 pm wrote:I literally do not observe that in the data presented.


I think maybe the issue is that stickdog only posted (the more pertinent) part of El Gato's substack post, as the nature of the data coming out of the UK and elsewhere showing negative vaccine efficacy for transmission/infection is pretty common knowledge by now. He did post the link to the full article at the top of the post, however.

OK, lets take it back to the source data (which can be found here). Table 12 on page 43 gives, for the figures for new 'cases' in the 18 to 29 year old age band as:

8,926.0 per 100,000 vaccinated (with 2 doses)

and;

4,058.9 per 100,000 unvaccinated

Clearly, the 'case' rate is substantially higher in the 'vaccinated' group. This pattern now extends across all of the age brackets* (it didn't a few weeks ago), charting this trend has been the focus of El Gato and others.

* The under 18 group is generally omitted from such analysis due to the low vaccination rate and a high testing frequency within this age group being major confounding factors.

Incidentally - as of 3rd January, 'Omicron' (SGTF) accounted for 95% of all 'cases' in the UK. Data differentiating vaccinated and unvaccinated 'cases' by 'variant' is not available AFAIAA.

As noted by BSav/eugyppius above, in this week's exciting instalment, they've now dropped the column for the merely 'double' vaxxed - but then they forgot to update the copious footnotes to reflect '3 doses'. Sloppy!

It's all an exercise in obfuscation.
User avatar
alloneword
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:19 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:59 pm


Life insurers' claims skyrocket in the first 3 quarters of 2021.

Hmmm. What could possibly account for this?

The global life insurance industry was hit with reported claims due to COVID-19 of $5.5 billion in the first nine months of 2021 versus $3.5 billion for the whole of 2020, according to insurance broker Howden in a report on Jan 4, while the industry had expected lower payouts due to the rollout of vaccines.

...

Dutch insurer Aegon , which does two-thirds of its business in the United States, said its claims in the Americas in the third quarter were $111 million, up from $31 million a year earlier.

...

The impact for insurers in 2020 was more muted because deaths were mainly among older people who typically do not take out life insurance.


Any ideas what could be causing such a huge increase in life insurance claims among young and previously perfectly healthy people?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:51 pm

liminalOyster » 20 Jan 2022 15:40 wrote:
alloneword » Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:36 pm wrote:
liminalOyster » Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:16 pm wrote:It's possible I'm not entirely following you but if I'm reading your post correctly, the only thing *shown* by this data is that vax efficacy against Omicron is piss-poor...

.. it still looks to my eye like we're not seeing much more here than a major increase in cases due to the vax not working against Omicron.

The data shows a negative efficacy. Worse than 'piss poor', even worse than 'not working'.

It shows that it's doing the exact opposite of what a 'vaccine' is supposed to do, in that those who took it are more likely to become 'infected' than those who did not..


Repeating myself here but I literally do not observe that in the data presented. Hence why I'm asking if I'm reading it correctly. I am interpreting that he's just looking at case growth and showing that recent case growth among the vaccinated is much, much greater than among the unvaccinated. If there had been relatively stable case loads of Delta among the unvaxxed, I'm not clear there would/should be a giant increase for Omicron reflected here.

If I'm misunderstanding where the data clearly shows probability of infection being higher, please enlighten me. I'll look again but I don't see this data proving the suggested negative efficacy (nor am I arguing that's unlikely or impossible which is *why* I think the antigenic imprinting hypothesis is interesting, if such is the case ).


Here are some data that directly indicate the negative efficacy of these vaccines in promoting Delta and Omicron infection.

Negative efficacy was first detected in data from August 2021 that was published by the UK-HSA in September.

Image

See page 17: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _37_v2.pdf

Since this report, all per 100,000 case rates have been consistently HIGHER for the fully vaccinated in all age demographics from 40 to 80 every single week!

From the most recently released report that still included vaccinated vs. unvaccinated:

Image

And, now from the just released report report, in which there is even negative efficacy among the recently boostered:

Image

Here is a chart from Australia that clearly shows hugely negative vaccine efficacy as well:

Image

For the last week listed, fully vaccinated cases outnumbered unvaccinated cases 113 to 1!

Just on this thread alone, there are dozens of similar chart postings from official German, Scottish, and Scandinavian country sources.

I am wondering how anyone who considers him or herself even cursorily informed on this issue could have missed the 15 ton elephant in the room at this point. Could you please explain what it is about these data that still confuses you?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:14 pm

Image
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:40 pm

.

Not to get all up in the bad cat's grill, but he just posted another noteworthy update:

[additional links at source]

alberta gets caught palming cards on covid vaccine efficacy

and we get real quantification on the size of the definitional datacrime. it shocked even me.

ok, i’m just gonna say it: this is great work.

joel smalley (a gatopal™ and another “booted by bluebird” refugee) nailed this. it’s a thing i’ve been wondering about for some time but i never found a dataset from which i could quantify it.

but joel did and this is great stuff. he literally had to scrape pixels to get this. it’s A+ sleuthing. go read it.

(and you know it’s the good stuff because alberta already took it down the minute they realized what they had blabbed. but the internet, well, the internet remembers. let’s help it route around censorship.)

Alberta just inadvertently confessed to fiddling the COVID vaccination stats.

More than half the newly vaccinated deaths were dumped in the unvaccinated.

https://metatron.substack.com/p/alberta ... medium=web

in short, the issue goes like this:

there is a 2 week window of immune suppression post vaccination. it roughly doubled the base rate chance of healthy people getting covid back before even delta. (it’s likely far worse now given omicron and OAS issues) this has been demonstrated in trials.

this gets not only covered up, but willfully misattributed. i wrote THIS on it some time back. it’s pretty simple.

Image

this is the essence of bayes. it’s how you measure and aggregate real relative risk and outcome. but the definition of “vaxxed” as “dose 2 +14 days” which breaks this utterly.

it attributes the risk of running across the field to “staying in the foxhole.”

if you get sick or hospitalized or die in that period, you get called “unvaxxed.” the increased risk you face due to immunosuppression should be associated with vaccination. instead, it gets attributed to lack of vaccination.

this is frightfully dishonest.

it’s also frighteningly effective if you seek to lie about efficacy.

bayesian datacrime: defining vaccine efficacy into existence
how the definitions of "full vaccinated" and now "boosted" are exaggerating (and possibly creating from whole cloth) VE and turning the data into gibberish

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/baye ... medium=web

i laid this out as just a basic walk though on the math. the numbers were thought experiments. but they clearly show that you can make a vaccine with zero efficacy and actual net harm from early immunosuppression look highly effective with just this one definitional game.

i could not quantify it. joel did. the numbers are eye popping and the 2 week period of greatly accelerated vulnerability is plain for anyone to see.

it’s outright glaring. it might well be a 5X accelerator for hospitalization and 3-4X for deaths over that 2 week period vs prior base rate. it might well be 10X in cases.

these are stunning numbers. the fact that they are not being talked about is outlandish. the fact that they are being hidden and misattributed by people who ought to know better is insidious.

here’s hospitalization for covid:

see how base risk rate soars in the first week and then sits at a high plateau for the second? yeah, that all gets called “unvaxxed.”

that’s getting shot running across the field and getting called a foxhole death.

Image

47.6% of hospitalizations post vaccination were in the first 14 days. and the rate falls off rapidly right after. (left is data by day, right is aggregate)

i mean, you can see the inflection clear as day. this was not chosen at random. this was a laser guided precision strike to shift the blame. it’s literally reducing the overall vaxxed hospital count by half and adding them to the unvaxxed.

this is the same garbage that went on in the clinical trials. they did not count this period when calculating efficacy.

Image

deaths are even more stark with 55.6% in the first 14 days post jab.

and it all got shifted the same way. this one dodge alone means that ~56% of all post jab covid deaths get called “unvaxxed.”

this data extends all the way to the present (100% of outcomes). i confirmed this with joel.

there is no way to recover a real, comparative data signal from this.

given the huge front loading on cases, hospitalization, and deaths, this one definitional stunt could literarily be the entire source of apparent vaccine efficacy and that may well include the drug trials.

it also means that (barring other bias selection) the vaxxed are more likely to also be “recovered” than the unvaxxed.

consider:

for the sake of example, let’s you have a base rate of 5% infection per month. (this number is arbitrary, but we need to use something.)

once you are infected, you do not get infected again.

we presume vaccines have zero effect on infection rates after the initial immunosuppression period. (this gets MUCH worse if they have negative VE’s, but as you’ll see, it’s not needed to make the case)

but immunosuppression means the vaxxed get 63% of total infections in the first month. (this is about right per joel. again, note the conspicuously beneficial placement of 2 week cutoff…)

Image

so, infection rate looks like this in vaxxed vs unvaxxed. (this is a little contrived but the basic relationship it lays out is sound)

Image

now presume that once you get covid and recover, you have a 99% lower chance of being hospitalized for covid in the future (this is roughly correct).

so take a baseline 10% case hospitalization rate in a naïve population (much too high but makes the math easy).

and we get this: (this is case hospital rate as reported in a case randomly distributed in the population, so the downward slant is the building of herd immunity to severe disease)

Image

~25% apparent vaccine efficacy from literally doing nothing except getting people sick faster. (ironically, the strategy so many have railed against so vehemently)

and this is BEFORE we pile the hospitalizations from the first 14 days into “unvaxxed” and salt their number while shaving the vaxxed. do that on the order of 50% of reported hospitalizations (as above, 47.6% in two week misallocation window) and the vaccines could well have negative VE on hospitalization and death and you would not be able to see it.

it would show up in cases though, and what do you know, it does. bigly.

that’s some magic trick.

it’s also a nasty possible explanation on why all cause deaths are up in so many places that vaccinated. that figure will catch this issue even if the drug trials and public health reporting is all set up to misattribute it. seeing it rise year on year despite milder variants raises some very pointy questions.

what we really need are all cause deaths data, cohorted by age, comorbidity, and vaccination status starting right from the day of your first jab.

it’s 100% out there. lots of the single payor system countries will have it.

and if it were good, i suspect we’d have seen it by now.

the fact that we have not speaks volumes.

and so will using these same bogus definitions of “dose 2 +14 days” if and when they do release such ACD data.

that’s not how you analyze an outcome and they know it. this is week one of trial design 101 stuff.

this was not an accident. this was a choice.

the drug companies that ran these trials know more about how study design and definitions affect reported outcomes than anyone on earth, bar none.

they did not screw this up.

they did not pull it out of a hat.

they stacked the deck.

how have you liked the cards you’ve been getting?

the FDA tried to release the actual trial data over 75 years. (yes, years) boy does THAT make you wonder…

it’s time for deep, serious transparency, and it looks like we may get our shot:

Image
https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 022-01-07/

and i know that a lot of us are looking forward to it.



https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/albe ... ming-cards
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Grizzly » Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:49 pm

https://web.archive.org/web/20051223173044/http://cryptome.org/trie-deals.htm

“Clinton fund-raiser Charles Trie has admitted to the FBI that he conducted a business deal that gave Red China equipment capable of producing deadly biological weapons”. (March 2000)
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Fri Jan 21, 2022 6:02 am

Oh dear.

And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests