Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Mar 27, 2024 1:18 pm

stickdog99
 
Posts: 6355
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Apr 02, 2024 5:27 pm

Relevant cross-post.

stickdog99 » Tue Apr 02, 2024 2:19 pm wrote:The reason that I cited Freddie deBoer is because his view are representative of the few of the well-meaning collectivists who have even bothered to try to come to terms with the profoundly destructive and senseless lockdown, vaccine mandate, mask mandate, school closure, small business closure, playground closure, culture decimating, social development decimating, authoritarian censorship enabling and especially billionaire enriching policies that they demanded or at least applauded from March 2020 until they finally woke up and refused their last booster.

A significant minority of these well-meaning collectivists are still desperately clinging to their mass media induced COVID illness anxiety disorder delusions, even as the entire world around them rolls their eyes. However, the vast majority refuse to even reevaluate any of their previous support for any of these intensely destructive policies in light of what we know for certain occurred in terms of the historic transfer of wealth and authoritarian power to the top 0.01%. "The authoritarian policies I supported and the even more heinous zero COVID policies I further demanded were all eminently reasonable responses to a scary, deadly novel pathogen at the time."

Freddie DeBoer is an interesting case because he goes a tiny step further than this. perhaps as required by his role as a cultural critic of the establishment left. He is now willing to admit that demanding Chinese-style zero COVID lockdowns in 2024 is a bridge too far while double masking outside and forcing dangerous injections and young and healthy people at no risk of COVID may have been minor mistakes in retrospect. But, of course, these trivial, well-meaning mistakes pale in comparison to the scourge of minions of rightwing anti-vaxxers daring to denigrate the sanctity of the Holy Injections (without presenting sufficient evidence for their outrageous claims, no less)!

It's wild to me how little awareness "deep cultural thinkers" such as Freddie deBoer demonstrate about the actual negative effects of Branch Covidianism. Note that nowhere in his long essay about "COVID still making people crazy" did deBoer so much as consider the historic transfer of wealth and authoritarian power to the top 0.1% or any of the ill-effects of school and small business closures, especially on our society's most vulnerable minority communities. Nowhere did deBoer mention the negative effects of the precedent of restricting college, employment, cultural participation, and even free speech rights only to those willing to give up their medical autonomy while presenting state sanctioned documentation to that effect.

That he and our leaders meant well in endorsing all of the above is more than enough to justify all of these negatives effects.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5292
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Apr 03, 2024 3:03 pm

@Wood_House76
·
I concur.

No evidence of human-to-human transmission.

The only thing spreading between people was lies & fear.

@WHO

Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China/

· Jan 14, 2020

...
Image

Apr 3, 2024

https://x.com/Wood_House76/status/17755 ... 08776?s=20
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5292
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Apr 07, 2024 7:31 pm

.
As a follow-up to the Twitter comment posted above:

My own current position, for whatever it may be worth (or simply to type something on a screen as a form of 'future reference', however useful):

I remain on the fence, currently, on whether or not there was a legitimate 'novel' illness that began to circulate/cause contagion on or around 2019. It's now quite clear that metrics, data, models (etc) were manipulated/misrepresented (in some cases inadvertently due to flawed criteria but also in large part due to outright purposeful fraud/criminal acts) to present a rampant 'pandemic' scenario, even though actual IFR was later determined to be in-line with flu-like illnesses.

Fraud/manipulations aside, and speaking only to my own experience: when I apparently caught 'covid' back in late 2021, during the first week or so I noticed I couldn't perform any strenuous physical activity (when I did, my heart would race/palpitate a bit), and also the smell of my perspiration changed -- there was a change to my gut bacteria, in other words (this later subsided and normalized). Whether or not these symptoms were necessarily 'novel' (vs. the characteristics of another type of pre-existing flu) is unknown to me -- or rather, I have no way to verify/confirm at this point. Other than these distinctions, it was like prior incidents of flu I've had in the past, and after a week or so I felt largely fine. As mentioned previously I didn't inoculate myself with any covid shots. I did take Ivermectin (in addition to Quercetin, Vitamins C, D, Zinc, etc), which seemed to speed up my recovery process, but again I can't speak to whether or not these treatments definitively improved my circumstances.

For all these reasons, and others (analysis/research/anecdotes received, unsolicited or otherwise, over the last few years, etc.), I can't rule out whether there was indeed a 'lab leak'/manufactured pathogen.

REGARDLESS, and to be pedantic/repetitive about it: There is never any justification for any of the policies imposed on populations. Lockdowns & mandates were net harmful, ineffective, and egregious affronts to fundamental human rights. A 'lab leak' does not in any way justify the actions taken by govts (nor would the actions be warranted in any sober cost vs benefit analysis); it does not 'absolve' them, in part because none of the actions taken were intended as 'mitigation' efforts, at least not by the primary drivers at the top-end of the pyramid. They were intended as paradigm-shifting, brazen wealth transfers and overt control measures with intent to cause immense harms (psychological, physical, economical).

I also believe the mRNA products are indeed harmful. The extent of harms will vary per individual (depending on their individual health profile, genotype, predispositions, etc.), and will also depend on how many repeat inoculations taken by an individual, the extent 1 or more of these shots were placebos and/or were diluted/less 'effective' in causing harms, etc.
It will be a few more years before there may be a better sense of the cumulative physical harms of these products, but I don't believe it's as 'deadly' as some on the extreme end of 'theorizing' postulated in 2021-2022. All of this remains TBD, however.

I do not currently subscribe to the notion that the mRNA products were beneficial in any way, despite misleading statistics and/or 'The Science' that may suggest otherwise. The BEST case scenario is that an individual received a placebo, an injection from a diluted/faulty batch, or their body may have been able to offset the harms of the product. Of course, with each added inoculation the potential for near and/or long-term harms are compounded.

Russian Roulette via injection, in other words.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Mon Apr 08, 2024 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5292
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Sun Apr 07, 2024 8:17 pm

stickdog99
 
Posts: 6355
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Apr 07, 2024 8:21 pm

@Wood_House76

It wasn’t panic—it was implementation.

Not incompetence—a coordinated response.

4:24 PM · Apr 7, 2024
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5292
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Apr 08, 2024 9:25 pm

.
Never to be forgotten or 'memory-holed'.

@boriquagato
·
i lived in a place with vaxx passports to go to a restaurant or a school or even to the hospital.

"leaders" all over the world deliberately made life hell for the unjabbed.

it was explicit, considered policy.

@ITGuy1959

Lori Lightfoot aka @chicagosmayor in late 2021:

“This health order may pose an inconvenience to the unvaccinated. And in fact, it is inconvenient by design.”

Never forget the tyranny imposed for a drug that never stopped spread.


it amazes me that people stand as apologists & deniers of this.

those who cheer led odious and ineffective vaxx coercion because they were scared, did not respect rights, and could not read drug data might wish to pretend this did not happen, but it did.

and we will not forget.

Image

https://x.com/boriquagato/status/1777324766099022217

@TheChiefNerd

New Peer-Reviewed Japanese Study Finds A ‘Statistically Significant Increases in Age-Adjusted Mortality Rates of Cancer’ After mRNA Vaccination

“No significant excess mortality was observed during the first year of the pandemic (2020). However, some excess cancer mortalities were observed in 2021 after mass vaccination with the first and second vaccine doses, and significant excess mortalities were observed for all cancers and some specific types of cancer (including ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, lip/oral/pharyngeal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer) after mass vaccination with the third dose in 2022. AMRs for the four cancers with the most deaths (lung, colorectal, stomach, and liver) showed a decreasing trend until the first year of the pandemic in 2020, but the rate of decrease slowed in 2021 and 2022. This study discusses possible explanations for these increases in age-adjusted cancer mortality rates.”

Image

https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1777490766773825719
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5292
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby BenDhyan » Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:21 am

The Great COVID Cover-up: Shocking truth about Wuhan and 15 federal agencies

Shame on all the federal employees who covered up these facts about COVID-19

How vast was the Great COVID Cover-up? Well, my investigation has recently discovered government officials from 15 federal agencies knew in 2018 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was trying to create a coronavirus like COVID-19.

These officials knew that the Chinese lab was proposing to create a COVID 19-like virus and not one of these officials revealed this scheme to the public. In fact, 15 agencies with knowledge of this project have continuously refused to release any information concerning this alarming and dangerous research.

Government officials representing at least 15 federal agencies were briefed on a project proposed by Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

This project, the DEFUSE project, proposed to insert a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus to create a novel chimeric virus that would have been shockingly similar to the COVID-19 virus.

For years, I have been fighting to obtain records from dozens of federal agencies relating to the origins of COVID-19 and the DEFUSE project. Under duress, the administration finally released documents that show that the DEFUSE project was pitched to at least 15 agencies in January 2018.

What does this mean?

It means that at least 15 federal agencies knew from the beginning of the pandemic that EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology were seeking federal funding in 2018 to create a virus genetically very similar if not identical to COVID-19.

Disturbingly, not one of these 15 agencies spoke up to warn us that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been pitching this research. Not one of these agencies warned anyone that this Chinese lab had already put together plans to create such a virus.

Continues....

Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Apr 09, 2024 10:43 am

@Wood_House76

...,

Summary of @PanData19 statement by @jengleruk

There was no pandemic by any reasonable definition – which must surely include that large numbers of previously healthy people in all age groups perished, whereas there was no discernible rise in global mortality in 2020.

The pandemic-believers respond to the above by claiming that there was nevertheless the spread of a novel pathogen from a point source (“lab-leak of a virus engineered through Gain of Function research”). They say this was a “nasty” virus and the harm caused resulted from “mishandling” or a lack of “early treatment”.

However:

a) There is no evidence that viruses can be engineered so as to have dangerous pandemic potential – lab-leaks happen all the time.

b) The purported waves of deaths and serious illnesses appear decoupled from “spread” – there are no clusters or ripples of deaths or unusual illnesses evident; the “virus” bizarrely obeyed national and administrative boundaries to create different “pandemic outcomes”.

c) The virus and disease claimed to have been caused by it were certainly not “novel”. “Covid” was indistinguishable from the features of known respiratory infectious illnesses. Any purported novelty is explainable by observation and confirmation bias augmented by the most extensive and powerful propaganda campaign ever waged on humanity.

All the harms reported can be explained by a combination of:

a) Massive disruptions in health and social care: maltreatment, non-treatment or inappropriate treatment, especially of the infirm elderly

b) Misattribution of deaths to “Covid”

c) Other harms consequent to the response to the false perception that a novel deadly virus was circulating

d) Data fraud

The notion of “something spreading” resulted from the explosion in the number of over-sensitive and under-specific tests (especially PCR) being carried out which were merely finding a pre-existing signal which had already become widespread – and, crucially, without being noticed at all – before the purported emergency.

As these “positive cases” were found, a number of perverse incentives created a positive feedback loop involving more testing (especially of “contacts”), more “cases” demanding more testing, more “cases” being found and so on.

The timeline associated with the early weeks of the Covid era stretches credulity. We are meant to believe that the following all happened spontaneously within a 4-week period:

a) 27 Dec 2019 – Hubei hospital reports cases of pneumonia of unknown cause

b) 7 Jan 2020 – the “new virus” is isolated

c) 12 Jan 2020 – sequence uploaded to internet – from a patient in Wuhan with an otherwise unremarkable pneumonia

d) 22 Jan 2020 – a dashboard purporting to report cases and deaths globally in real time is set up and launched by John Hopkins University

e) 23 Jan 2020 – a paper describing a validated test (developed without access to patient material) is published, having been “peer-reviewed” within 24 hours of submission

“Lab leak” and “zoonotic spillover” theories are the two constituent parts of a deliberately engineered false dichotomy. By permitting argument between these two choices alone, the question as to whether we actually had a pandemic at all—and what therefore caused the myriad harms—is avoided.

Yet BOTH theories have the same endpoint: the sustenance of the “Pandemic Preparedness Industry” which, flush with a hugely successful “Covid” episode will no doubt delight in the prospect of lucrative reruns.

The oft-repeated references to “the next pandemic”— even by some apparent “Covid dissidents”— is a foreshadowing of their intentions, because, remember, as they say: “Any rogue lab can engineer these viruses now.”

After all, as we have argued, the actual escape of something from a lab is not required to generate a “pandemic”; the mere seeding of the narrative of escape, rollout of testing and resultant social contagion is all that is needed.

Note: The above (deliberately) does not address the questions as to why the fraud was perpetrated, nor the role of the vaccine programme within it.

https://x.com/Wood_House76/status/1777671695727239650

https://pandata.org/every-single-aspect ... -pandemic/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5292
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:45 pm

Belligerent Savant » Tue Apr 09, 2024 3:45 pm wrote:.
Modern Day "Science", AKA "THE SCIENCE". Captured and Compromised. Years after it's been released to the public, shown to be ineffective. Shocker.

@DACDAC4DAC

On April 3, and with no fanfare, Pfizer published its Phase 2/3 clinical data on the effectiveness of Paxlovid. This paper is a damning indictment of the FDA and the use of EUAs during the covid panic.

Let's look at the data.

Image

...this is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. It randomized both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals who were at standard risk and high risk. Patients were randomly assigned Paxlovid. Diaries were used to track patients (this is common practice).

What did the trials uncover? That Paxlovid did nothing. At all. The mean time to elevation of symptoms was 13.8 compared to 14.1 for placebo. The median time was 12 (11-13) compared to 13 (12-14). The p-value was 0.60.

Image

What does that p-value mean? It means that the null hypothesis that there was no difference between Paxlovid and placebo could not be rejected. In fact, it wasn't close. There was no difference between Paxlovid and placebo regarding the primary endpoint - symptom alleviation.

But what about progression to hospitalization and death? You know, how Paxlovid is marketed to patients and doctors. Paxlovid was NOT significantly better than placebo. Not even close.

"In a planned subgroup analysis involving high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 3 (0.9%) in the [Paxlovid] group and 7 (2.2%) in the placebo group (difference, −1.3 percentage points; 95% CI, −3.3 to 0.7)."

Again, it was not close to being significant.

How did the authors get around this problem? Let them tell you. "The results with respect to the numbers of Covid-19–related hospitalizations and deaths from any cause in this trial, although not significant, are consistent with and supported by recent real-world data."

Got that? Post-marketed results backfilled a drug that FAILED during clinical trials. Paxlovid failed to meet either its primary clinical endpoint or its secondary clinical endpoint. For any drug, this should have been the end.

This paper is an indictment of the FDA. The agency tasked with protecting patients and making sure that safe and effective drugs reach patients failed miserably.

It is also an indictment of the medical community. They should have reviewed the data or requested it.


https://x.com/DACDAC4DAC/status/1777688883150377226
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5292
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Apr 10, 2024 3:52 pm

.
co-sign the "me" portion below:

@Wood_House76

GBD, 2020: "Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal."

Me, 2024: "Everyone should be allowed to live their lives without restriction, coercion, fear-mongering, or *protection* from Public Health."

https://gbdeclaration.org

Image

https://x.com/Wood_House76/status/1777908692697878771
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5292
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Apr 14, 2024 12:38 pm

el gato malo
@boriquagato

i remember in feb and march of 2020 being astonished by this lockdown idea and loudly yowling "do you have any idea what shutting down the world for 2 weeks would do to global supply chains and economic function?"

it did not even occur to me that anyone would be crazy enough to try it for months or years at the expense of small business, social fabric, and education.

it was simply such an insane idea that my mind could not compass the notion that someone would try it or that anyone would go along with it if they did.

i think a number of us suffered from a similar failure of imagination. there was a pervasive sense among us that there was just no way that the "people in charge" could be this stupid, barking mad, and hopelessly corrupt and self-absorbed or that society could be so easily panicked into a stampede of self-enforcing submission to collective delusions.

it turns out that the intersection of milgram and ash is a very dangerous place for society.

it turns out that propaganda works.

and it turns out that "the experts" are anything but.


the question that remains is "did we generate the societal antibodies to resist the next one?"

a significant part of that is resisting this historical re-write of "mistakes were made, but no one could have known."

they could. they did. and they will again.

but alone, that does not amount to much.

you get run over.

it's who society stands behind that decides whether or not "people knowing better" matters.

choose well.

Peter Hitchens
@ClarkeMicah

My letter in The Spectator this week.

Image


https://x.com/boriquagato/status/1779486618153328724
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5292
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Apr 25, 2024 3:29 pm

stickdog99
 
Posts: 6355
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri May 03, 2024 8:36 am

@InformedNJNurse

The New York Times has finally written a piece about Covid vaccine injury while the Government continues to gaslight us into believing that what we witness daily is extremely rare.

They MANDATED these vaccines with no central repository of vaccine recipients, nor of medical records, and no easy to way to pool the data. Purposely.

And now the Government has turned their back once again on the vaccine injured.

They have a VAERS system in place to report adverse event and side effects, yet state the data is unreliable because it is not vetted. Purposely.

And in this piece they still blame the anti-vaccine movement for not being able to study the possible signals because they do not want to encourage people to stop taking vaccines. All calculated.

Remember they offered free donuts….

Image

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/heal ... 5f93d4113a


That NYTimes piece continues to act as apologist for highly faulty products (even in the above piece they persist, for now, with the canard that these products ‘saved lives’), but the mere fact it is published in the NYT is a clear signal that certain acknowledgements will begin to be made in the mainstream.

@ChadLaveglia
·
Via ⁦@nytimes⁩. Remember when they said “safe & effective”?

Image

https://x.com/ChadLaveglia/status/1786421442097131768
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5292
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Mon May 06, 2024 4:21 pm

Effectiveness of the 2023-2024 Formulation of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 mRNA Vaccine against the JN.1 Variant

ABSTRACT

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the 2023-2024 formulation of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine protects against COVID-19 caused by the JN.1 lineage of SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

Employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment when the JN.1 lineage of SARS-CoV2 became the dominant circulating strain, were included. Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined prospectively. Protection provided by vaccination (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. The analysis was adjusted for the propensity to get tested, age, sex, pandemic phase when the last prior COVID-19 episode occurred, and the number of prior vaccine doses.

Results

Among 47561 employees, COVID-19 occurred in 838 (1.8%) during the 16-week study period. In multivariable analysis, the 2023-2024 formula vaccinated state was associated with a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 while the JN.1 lineage was the dominant circulating strain (hazard ratio [HR], .77; 95% confidence interval [C.I.], .62-.94; P = .01), yielding an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 23% (95% C.I., 6%-38%). Compared to 0 or 1 prior vaccine doses, risk of COVID-19 was incrementally higher with 2 prior doses (HR, .1.46; 95% C.I., 1.12-1.90; P < .005), 3 prior doses (HR, 1.95; 95% C.I., 1.51-2.52; P < .001), and more than 3 prior doses (HR, 2.51; 95% C.I., 1.91-3.31; P < .001).

Conclusions

The 2023-2024 formula COVID-19 vaccine given to working-aged adults afforded a low level of protection against the JN.1 lineage of SARS-CoV-2, but a higher number of prior vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19.

Summary

Among 47561 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the 2023-2024 formula COVID-19 vaccine was 23% effective against the JN.1 lineage of SARS-CoV-2, but a higher number of prior COVID-19 vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19.

...

There was no significant difference in the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 in the 2023-2024 formula vaccinated state compared to the non-vaccinated state in an unadjusted analysis:

Image

Image

...

If number of prior vaccine doses was not adjusted for in the multivariable model, the 2023-2024 formulation of the vaccine was not protective against COVID-19 (HR 1.01, 95% C.I. .84 – 1.21, P = 0.95).

...

We were unable to distinguish between symptomatic and asymptomatic infections. The number of severe illnesses was too small to examine as an outcome.

...

Consistent with similar findings in many prior studies [3,8,10,12,18–20], a higher number of prior vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19. The exact reason for this finding is not clear. It is possible that this may be related to the fact that vaccine-induced immunity is weaker and less durable than natural immunity. So, although somewhat protective in the short term, vaccination may increase risk of future infection because the act of vaccination prevents the occurrence of a more immunogenic event. Thus, the short-term protection provided by a COVID-19 vaccine comes with a risk of increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in the future.

This understanding suggests that a more nuanced approach to COVID-19 is necessary. Although some individuals are at high risk of complications from COVID-19, and may benefit from receiving a vaccine frequently, the wisdom of vaccinating everyone with a vaccine of low effectiveness every few months to prevent what is generally a mild or an asymptomatic infection in most healthy persons, needs to be questioned.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6355
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests