Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Nov 20, 2020 8:22 pm

Sure, please feel free to check the most recent Vermont data for yourselves:

https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/def ... 0-2020.pdf

https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/def ... Week46.pdf
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby conniption » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:51 pm

From the Daily Mail??!!


Daily Mail

What they DON'T tell you about Covid: Fewer beds taken up than last year, deaths a fraction of the grim forecasts, 95% of fatalities had underlying causes... and how the facts can be twisted to strike fear in our hearts

Despite the fearmongering, the number of Covid-19 deaths is significantly lower than the peak back in April

Latest ONS estimate shows that in the week ending November 14, new infections were already levelling off

GCHQ has embedded a team in Downing Street to provide Boris Johnson with real-time updates of Covid-19

Analysts will sift through vast amounts of data to ensure Boris Johnson has the most up-to-date information


By Ross Clark for the Daily Mail

Published: 17:23 EST, 20 November 2020 | Updated: 21:51 EST, 20 November 2020


With the nation’s health at stake, it was revealed this week that GCHQ has embedded a team in Downing Street to provide Boris Johnson with real-time updates to combat the ‘emerging and changing threat’ posed by Covid-19.

The intelligence analysts will sift through vast amounts of data to ensure the Prime Minister has the most up-to-date information on the spread of the virus.

But what exactly should Mr Johnson be looking for? Here, ROSS CLARK reveals what he should be asking…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... earts.html
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Grizzly » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:10 am

Image
https://twitter.com/pdacosta/status/1329790311300796416
“We’re working on mass distribution of the virus"

“STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS!”
Get your jab now, Elixirs, tonics and ... Never before used mRNA pricks!


Mnuchin is a member of The Order.

“The activities of The Order are directed towards changing our society, changing the world, to bring about a New World Order. This will be a planned order with heavily restricted individual freedom, without Constitutional protection, without national boundaries or cultural distinction.”

America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones Antony C. Sutton, 1986
“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 Belligerent Savant » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:25 pm

.

One more contribution before I head to my temp exile from RI-world:


Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests “Unreliable” & Quarantines “Unlawful”

Important legal decision faces total media blackout in Western world


An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.

Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.

Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.

The specifics of the case concern four tourists entering the country from Germany – all of whom are anonymous in the transcript of the case – who were quarantined by the regional health authority. Of the four, only one had tested positive for the virus, whilst the other three were deemed simply of “high infection risk” based on proximity to the positive individual. All four had, in the previous 72 hours, tested negative for the virus before departing from Germany.

In their ruling, judges Margarida Ramos de Almeida and Ana Paramés referred to several scientific studies. Most notably this study by Jaafar et al., which found that – when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more – the accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives.

The ruling goes on to conclude that, based on the science they read, any PCR test using over 25 cycles is totally unreliable. Governments and private labs have been very tight-lipped about the exact number of cycles they run when PCR testing, but it is known to sometimes be as high as 45. Even fearmonger-in-chief Anthony Fauci has publicly stated anything over 35 is totally unusable.

You can read the complete ruling in the original Portuguese here, and translated into English here. There’s also a good write up on it on Great Game India, plus a Portuguese professor sent a long email about the case to Lockdown Sceptics.

*

The media reaction to this case has been entirely predictable – they have not mentioned it. At all. Anywhere. Ever.

The ruling was published on November 11th, and has been referenced by many alt-news sites since…but the mainstream outlets are maintaining a complete blackout on it.

The reddit Covid19 board actually removed the post, because it was “not a reliable source”, despite relying on the official court documents:

Lookout for a forced and disingenuous “fact-check” on this issue from Health Feedback or some other “non-partisan” outlet in the near future. But until they find some poor shlub to lend their name to it, the media blackout will continue.

Whatever they say, this is a victory for common sense over authoritarianism and hysteria.



https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/por ... -unlawful/
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 stickdog99 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:48 pm

If you can't post your highly unpopular and inflammatory opinions on RI, the terrorists win!
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6303
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:20 pm

.
Ha -- good point. Cross-posting this as it's pertinent to this thread.

Belligerent Savant » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:09 pm wrote:
[...]

I'm not against balanced lockdowns during initial periods of influx (focused on those most at risk, while applying proper precautions elsewhere). The deaths and loss of livelihoods due to the broad reach of the lockdowns are NOT justified given current figures.

Also: long-term, extended lockdowns havent been successful in managing the spread of a virus. Our hospitals also aren't as 'overtaxed' as often reported.

According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control:

“There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread. It is hard to imagine that measures like those within the category of social distancing would not have some positive impact by reducing transmission of a human respiratory infection . . . However, the evidence base supporting each individual measure is often weak.”
...

...there are good arguments that there should be default plans (plans that have been tested during exercises to be implemented in the absence of other information). Indeed there is WHO guidance to that effect and many European countries have been developing plans. However, given the above considerations, these plans should have considerable flexibility and command and control structures that will allow changes to be made quickly in the light of new data and experience.

All public health measures have costs and many also have secondary effects. The secondary effects of most measures can be considerable and many will require careful consideration. The more drastic societal measures that have been suggested (e.g. proactive school closures and travel restrictions) have significant costs and consequences that will themselves vary by their setting. These are also difficult to sustain. Hence for ordinary seasonal influenza or a mild pandemic their application, and especially their early application, could be more damaging than just allowing the infection to run its course and treating those with more severe illness.


https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publicati ... -ecdc-menu
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 conniption » Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:57 pm

What NO ONE is Saying About The Lockdowns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuDQ_3g53qc

•Nov 24, 2020
corbettreport
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Nov 26, 2020 6:09 am

Belligerent Savant » Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:25 pm wrote:.

One more contribution before I head to my temp exile from RI-world


I've been very busy (for months) and haven't followed everything here but you're certainly not exiled.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:28 pm

.

Yes: self-imposed temp exile, to be clear!
The mods here in RI have been even-handed, in contrast to authority figures elsewhere.. :sarcasm
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 dada » Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:58 pm

The mods are authority figures? I thought they were just the boardmembers with the hammers.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Cordelia » Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:41 pm

dada wrote:The mods are authority figures? I thought they were just the boardmembers with the hammers.


:wink

ImageImage
The greatest sin is to be unconscious. ~ Carl Jung

We may not choose the parameters of our destiny. But we give it its content. ~ Dag Hammarskjold 'Waymarks'
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby liminalOyster » Fri Nov 27, 2020 5:58 pm

Controversial tech firm Palantir is reportedly building a data tool to help US authorities allocate COVID-19 vaccines
Isobel Asher Hamilton Oct 22, 2020, 7:52 AM

Data-analytics firm Palantir, which has drawn fire from human rights groups for its US government contracts, is reportedly working on a tool to help local authorities decide where to distribute COVID-19 vaccines.

The Wall Street Journal reported the news on Thursday, citing state and local health officials briefed on the project. Palantir did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

The software Palantir is developing is called Tiberius, and it will pool coronavirus data to help officials where to allocate vaccines, the Journal reported. It could show, for example, areas with high proportions of healthcare workers, clinically vulnerable people, or elderly people.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services told the Journal that Palantir is acting as a subcontractor building Tiberius. She also said no personally identifiable information will be used by the project.

Palantir, which was cofounded by Silicon Valley mogul and vocal Trump-supporter Peter Thiel, has been criticized in the past for its contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A document created by Palantir about Tiberius, seen by the Journal, said it would "integrate a wide range of demographic, employment, and public health data sets to identify the location of priority populations."

Combined with infection data, the idea is the tool will enable local officials to "proactively identify distribution bottlenecks, inventory constraints, and gaps in administration across key populations," the document said.

Another of Palantir's services, called HHS Protect, is also currently being used by the HHS Department to track COVID-19 hospitalizations. The department's spokeswoman said Tiberius is built on the same software as HHS Protect.

The HHS spokeswoman also said the project was named after Captain Kirk from "Star Trek," whose middle name is Tiberius.

Disclosure: Palantir Technologies CEO Alexander Karp is a member of Axel Springer's shareholder committee. Axel Springer owns Insider Inc, Business Insider's parent company.

https://www.businessinsider.com/palanti ... sj-2020-10
"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 Belligerent Savant » Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:18 pm

.

A number of data points for consideration.


........................................................

The primary justification for wide-scale mask and lockdown measures is due to the claims that asymptomatic cases can pass the virus to others.
The below study refutes this claim.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

Abstract

Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. 107 of 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423–0.574%). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.

...

Discussion

The citywide nucleic acid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan recruited nearly 10 million people, and found no newly confirmed cases with COVID-19. The detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases was very low, and there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts. There were no asymptomatic positive cases in 96.4% of the residential communities.

Previous studies have shown that asymptomatic individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus were infectious3, and might subsequently become symptomatic4. Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-25. In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.

More here: https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelYeado ... 0906605571

FAUCI, back in January. There's been nothing substantively new about this virus since he made this claim, yet the narratives changed. Why?

Image

Image

The Strangely Unscientific Masking of America

I remember vividly the day, at the tail end of March, when facemasks suddenly became synonymous with morality: either one cared about the lives of others and donned a mask, or one was selfish and refused to do so. The shift occurred virtually overnight.

Only a day or two before, I had associated this attire solely with surgeons and people living in heavily polluted regions. Now, my friends’ favorite pastime during our weekly Zoom sessions was excoriating people for running or socializing without masks in Prospect Park. I was mystified by their certitude that bits of cloth were the only thing standing between us and mass death, particularly when mere weeks prior, the message from medical experts contradicted this new doctrine.

On February 29, the U.S. surgeon general infamously tweeted: “Seriously people – STOP BUYING MASKS. . . They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus.” Anthony Fauci, the best-known member of the coronavirus task force, advised Americans not to wear masks around this time. Similarly, in the earliest weeks of the pandemic, the CDC maintained that masks should be worn only by individuals who were symptomatic or caring for a sick person, a position that the WHO stood by even longer.

As rapidly as mask use became a matter of ethics, the issue transformed into a political one, exemplified by an article printed on March 27 in the New York Times, entitled “More Americans Should Probably Wear Masks for Protection.” The piece was heavy on fear-mongering and light on evidence. While acknowledging that “[t]here is very little data showing that flat surgical masks, in particular, have a protective effect for the general public,” the author went on to argue that they “may be better than nothing,” and cited a couple of studies in which surgical masks ostensibly reduced influenza transmission rates.

One report reached its conclusion based on observations of a “dummy head attached to a breathing simulator.” Another analyzed use of surgical masks on people experiencing at least two symptoms of acute respiratory illness. Incidentally, not one of these studies involved cloth masks or accounted for real-world mask usage (or misusage) among lay people, and none established efficacy of widespread mask-wearing by people not exhibiting symptoms. There was simply no evidence whatsoever that healthy people ought to wear masks when going about their lives, especially outdoors. Yet by April, to walk the streets of Brooklyn with one’s nose and mouth exposed evoked the sort of reaction that in February would have been reserved for the appearance of a machine gun.

In short order, the politicization intensified. President Trump refused to wear a mask relatively early on, so resistance to them was equated with support for him. By the same token, Democratic politicians across the board eagerly adopted the garb; accordingly, all good liberals were wearing masks religiously by the beginning of April. Likewise, left-leaning newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post unequivocally promoted mask-wearing after that March 27 article, with no real analysis or consideration of opposing views and evidence.

The speed with which mask-wearing among the general public transitioned from unheard of to a moral necessity struck me as suspicious. After all, if the science was as airtight as those around me claimed, surely masks would have been recommended by January or February, not to mention during prior infectious disease outbreaks such as the 2009 swine flu. It seemed unlikely that the scientific proof became incontrovertible sometime between late February and late March, particularly in the absence of any new evidence surfacing during that time period.

Perhaps none of this is particularly surprising in this hyper-political era. What is shocking is the scientific community’s participation in subverting evidence that does not comport with the consensus. A prime example is the Institute of Health Metrics Evaluation’s (“IHME”) rather astounding claim, published in the journal Nature-Medicine and echoed in countless articles afterward, that the lives of 130,000 people could be saved with a nationwide mask mandate.

As my colleague Phil Magness pointed out in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, the IHME model was predicated upon faulty data: it assumed that 49% of Americans were wearing masks based on a survey conducted between April and June, while claiming that statistic represented the number of Americans wearing masks as of September 21. In fact, by the summer, around 80% of Americans were regularly wearing them. (Ironically, had Dr. Fauci and the Surgeon General not bungled the message in March, mask use probably would have reached much higher rates much earlier on).

This called into question the accuracy of the 130,000 figure, since many more people habitually used masks than the study presumed.

Although Magness contacted Nature-Medicine to point out the problem, after stalling for nearly two weeks, the journal declined to address it. Needless to say, the damage had been done: newspapers such as the New York Times undoubtedly would fail to correct the error and any retractions certainly would be placed far from the front page, where the initial article touting the IHME figure appeared. Thus, as expected, the unfounded claim that 130,000 lives could be saved with a nationwide mask-mandate continues to be repeated, including by president-elect Joe Biden and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins.

That the science behind mask-wearing is questionable at best is further exemplified by a letter to the editor written in response to Magness’s article. Dr. Christopher Murray acknowledged that rates of mask-wearing have steadily increased, but then concluded that masks should be used because they are “our first line of defense against the pandemic” and current IHME modeling indicates that “if 95% of U.S. residents were to wear masks when leaving home, we could prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans” because “masks work,” and “much deeper pain is ahead if we refuse to wear them.”

None of this accounts for the failure of either Nature-Medicine or the IHME modelers to recognize and correct the error. Moreover, neither the IHME modelers nor Dr. Murray provide any evidence that masks work. They assume masks are extremely effective at preventing spread of the coronavirus, and then claim that the model is correct for that reason. This sort of circular reasoning is all-too typical of those who so vociferously insist that masks are effective without going to the trouble of substantiating that contention – or differentiating what is likely a modest benefit from mask-wearing in specific indoor locations and around high-risk individuals from the media-driven tendency to depict masks as a silver bullet for stopping the virus in all circumstances.

Coverage of a recent mask study conducted in Denmark likewise epitomizes the failure of the scientific community to rigorously engage with results that do not fit the prevailing masks-as-a-panacea narrative. The first randomized and controlled study of its kind (another appeared in May but it pertained to flu and had similar results), it found an absence of empirical evidence that masks provide protection to people wearing them, although it apparently did not assess whether they prevent infection of those who encounter the wearer. The report was covered in a New York Times article bearing the patronizing headline, “A New Study Questions Whether Masks Protect Wearers. You Need to Wear Them Anyway.”

Noting that the results “conflict with those from a number of other studies,” primarily “laboratory examinations of the particles blocked by materials of various types,” the author remarked that, therefore, this research “is not likely to alter public health recommendations in the United States.” Notably, laboratory examinations, as opposed to the Danish study, do not account for the realities of everyday mask usage by non-medical professionals.

The author then quotes Susan Ellenberg, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, who claims that the study indicates a trend: “‘in the direction of benefit’ even if the results were not statistically significant. ‘Nothing in this study suggests . . . that it is useless to wear a mask,’” according to Dr. Ellenberg.

Nor does anything in this study suggest that it is useful to wear a mask, a fact that Dr. Ellenberg (and the headline) conveniently ignores. Furthermore, if a result is statistically insignificant, it should not be used to make the case for any proposition — as even I, a layperson, know.

Scientists ought to dispassionately analyze data that contradicts their biases and assumptions, and be open to changing their beliefs accordingly. That the results of the only randomized, controlled study were and continue to be automatically discounted demonstrates that, when it comes to the subject of masks, anything approximating the scientific method has gone out the window. That is all the more evident given the lack of interest that mask proponents have shown in conducting a randomized, controlled study themselves.

An article in the Los Angeles Times went even further: it twisted the findings of the Danish study to argue, incomprehensibly, that the research demonstrated more mask-wearing is warranted. The author cited, as supposedly compelling evidence that masks work, the low Covid-19 death rates in Singapore, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Indeed, according to the latest YouGov poll, administered in mid-November, 83% of Americans now wear masks in public, higher rates than Vietnam (77%) and Taiwan (82%).

Furthermore, there are other explanations, apart from widespread mask usage, for the remarkably low death rates in these countries. Some scientists believe that previous exposure to other coronaviruses in these regions may confer partial or total immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Others have speculated that obesity, environment or genetics could be the reason that Europe and the United States have substantially higher death rates than many Asian and African countries; after all, obesity is one of the most significant risk factors for severe illness.

To conclude on the basis of low death rates in several countries that masks prevent coronavirus transmission is patently absurd, illogical, and unscientific. A casual observer might also note that coronavirus cases (albeit not necessarily deaths) are rising in many parts of the world, regardless of mask mandates or rates of implementation. While not a controlled experiment, this fact at least ought to be addressed when making such sweeping claims.

Ultimately, I do not have the credentials to determine whether or not –or to what extent — masks work. But it is obvious that the issue has become so politicized that mainstream media outlets, politicians, and even scientists seize upon the slightest bit of favorable evidence, dismiss out of hand anything that conflicts with their theory, and most egregiously of all misrepresent the data, to support the conclusion that masks worn by asymptomatic people prevent coronavirus transmission.

And masks are only one part of this story: school closures, lockdowns, and social distancing all have been dogmatically embraced as a means of controlling infection. The substantial evidence that these mechanisms are not effective, particularly beyond their duration, has been automatically rejected for too long. This is not science: it is politics, and those within the profession who have refused to examine their confirmation biases, or manipulated the evidence to score political points, are utterly unqualified for the job.


https://www.aier.org/article/the-strang ... f-america/

.....................................................................

Over at the UK:

Image
Image

........................................................................

ALL for THIS:

Image
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 » Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 pm

Image
“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 liminalOyster » Mon Nov 30, 2020 12:29 am

Ugh, I am swearing to myself a personal oath to not return again for awhile after this but, BS, for all I am genuinely very fond of you, with that Nature article you're cherrypicking a single paper among *literally* hundreds to thousands of other reputable, high-profile papers that demonstrate asymptomatic transmission is *precisely* part of what makes COVID unique and that this is, indeed, *precisely* what is known now that was not understood back in January.

OK, tail between my legs, I now head back to the shameful pigpen of otherwise lunatic fringe parapoliticians who suffer from the achilles heel of COVID credulity. Peace.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Belligerent Savant and 37 guests