| There are 48 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
|
|
There have been two published studies on Ivermectin. Both have since been retracted. At least one of those studies was not peer-reviewed. The other might not have been either. Research is continuing to see if there's anything to Ivermectin as a therapeutic but nothing that could be considered peer-reviewed data has been published yet. Ivermectin is for treatment of intestinal parasites and has no anti-viral properties. It is also something that can cause contraindications with other medications so it shouldn't be taken without a prior consult with your doctor to make sure that doens't occur. It is also possible to overdose on Ivermectin so the dosage control is important too. Might it turn out that Ivermectin has efficacy against Covid? Maybe. but there's nothing of record right now to draw that conclusion. Just too early to tell.
|
|
|
I've only "heard" the info. Nothing concrete that I can find to read. The articles that I have found aren't reputable or worth quoting. Not even sure what to believe considering where most of our Info comes from, Google.
|
|
|
Medical studies are notoriously difficult to read if you don't have the background on the subject matter. That leaves most having to read summaries in news articles. Those summaries aren't always unbiased or accurate. And the studies aren't always based on the most painstaking of trials, particularly when there's a pandemic to be addressed.
|
|
|
Yes I have and I've been on it for a while.
Do a duck duck go search for: FLCCC, Dr. Pierre Kory
On utube search the channel - Darkhorse has done several videos on it. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist and he's taking Ivermectin.
They'll give you a good start
As far as it goes the fda has so far refused to review the research that Kory and his group have done on Ivermectin. But India mandated it's use throughout the country when they were going through the recent spike. They attribute it's use to the dramatic drop in both cases and the severity of the symptoms when someone did get it.
There have been a number of studies done by Brazil, Columbia, African nations and India that show it's very effective and several studies done by both Britsh researchers/Dr's who went through the data.
In NY 3 severe cases of covid in elderly patients were given Ivermectin in the emergency ward then when admitted the treatment was stopped and the patient's health declined. The hospitals were taken to court and judges ruled in favor of the patients. All 3 were again given Ivermectin and all 3 recovered and went home.
I've put up videos of Kory, Darkhorse/Brett Weinstein and others that talk about their findings.
You'll find them on covid blogs.
Links below are to Dark horse podcasts with Kory.
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
I'm not going to pretend to know the technical difference between a virus and a parasite, but they do act in similar ways. Maybe that could be why ivermectin has shown to be effective against covid? Just a thought way outside the box....
|
|
|
The data gathered by Kory and his group, Brazil, Columbia etc. have shown that it's not only effective but incredibly effective. Both as a preventative and when taken after contracting the virus.
Are there any peer reviewed studies? No, they take years and are VERY expensive. But there are case studies on tens of thousands of people that show it's effectiveness. Add to that that merk lost the patent 10 - 20 years ago so it can now be made by any pharmaceutical company so there's no profit in making/selling the drug, which is why it's not being studied as a treatment for the virus.
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
The messed up part of the entire pandemic, the all mighty dollar. It's not about saving anyone, really. It's about how much big pharm can make by not killing too many in saving most. But it's all been tested safe and effective. Haha, ask someone who had a loved one die after getting an experimental drug if they still thought it was safe?
|
|
|
The vax is free. What else is free in America? Just separate the political from health and safety.
Taking the vax will: Keep you from getting sick. Keep others from getting sick. Stop deaths. Make the country safe in case a new variant shows up.
Simple.
|
|
|
my brother is a board certified MD in Boise ID and he has been successfully treating his patients with Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquin..He wrote me a script just in case...He has even used it on patients who contracted Covid 19 after having had the vaccine. a couple of his patients got better in as little as three days...He has had it, knocked him out for almost a week, his son's only lasted over the weekend. his wife's lasted almost two weeks
|
|
|
"I happen to believe the FDA"
If someone is already sceptical of the federal government, then that article certainly won't keep them from looking for an alternative. It really is only saying ivermectin has not been reviewed as a treatment for covid. And only use it as prescribed by a physician.
|
|
|
"free"
Only thing free in life is your choice to choose. At least is has been. Maybe not going forward though.....
The free part may also come with an enlarged heart, paralysis, and the unknown. Because it was tested for how long?
|
|
|
I happen NOT to believe the fda. So I'll take Ivermectin instead.
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
'The vax is free').gif)
No it's not. The government is paying big pharma billions for it.
Where do you think they're getting the money?!?
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
Monoclonal antibodies have undergone testing and seem to help to slow the contacting of the disease as well as provide relief after one has contracted the virus. Any other supposed treatments have not been extensively or even partially tested. It is dangerous to try any other supposed cure or prevention drug as they put the user at risk.
|
|
|
See first link for a decent survey of some of the more "definitive" and "informative" studies on ivermectin for COVID-19, as compiled by scientists at the NIH.
If you don't trust the NIH, the second link is a list of articles found in Google Scholar when you type in "ivermectin", "covid", and "trial" and set search criteria to "sort by date." A good sampling of the latest on this topic can be found here.
One of the major studies that supported the use of ivermectin has just been retracted. You can read more about this and the consequences of this by exploring the third link.
Good luck
|
|
|
Huge RCT underway for ivermectin at the University of Oxford to see if it can keep people out of hospitals.
|
|
|
I wonder how many of you people that don't trust the FDA, CDC, vaccines, etc, had offspring that went through the public school system
|
|
|
“I wonder how many of you people that don't trust the FDA, CDC, vaccines, etc, had offspring that went through the public school system“
What's your point? Because of the vaccine requirement? Oh you mean the ones that have had YEARS of testing and a know history,yhose vaccines?
|
|
|
Over 95% of new hospitalizations and deaths due to covid are of the unvaccinated.
|
|
|
Since you may not trust Google Scholar, and since there is no duck duck go scholar, here's a link to a duck duck go search using the terms "ivermectin", "covid", "trial", "2021"
Hopefully, this sampling will help.
|
|
|
My point is there is an underlying hypocrisy about this vaccine. The dipshits on Fox have been telling you for 6 months that the vax is the devil, yet they are all vaxxed. Every year we vaccinate for new strains of the flu, no problem....vaccinate junior so he can go to school, no problem, required to vaccinate to enter the military or visit many countries, no sweat. A newly developed vaccine that can save your ass, no thanks, I don't trust the FDA.
The blueprint of the vax is not new, coronavirus is not new, we've been studying that for 50 years. The fact that a global emergency spurred this kind of fast result should be celebrated IMO.
|
|
|
"Over 95% of new hospitalizations and deaths due to covid are of the unvaccinated"
So the remaining 5%. Does anyone know if those infections are recipients of the Vax or reinfection of covid survivors? And at what rate are people dying compared to the first and second wave? The infection rate doesn't mean squat if people are not dying. Right or wrong?
|
|
|
I'd assume deaths will be far fewer for two reasons. 1. Most people who are high-risk have probably taken the vaccine, and thus will be far less likely to die (effectiveness in the 90% range). 2. People who haven't taken the vaccine are probably younger and healthier and thus are less likely to die.
Still, death is a lagging indicator, so we shall see.
Still not a good thing to let the virus run unchecked. Vastly increases the odds for mutations and even mild cases can leave a sizable number of people with long COVID. Good thing that there have been very few reports of long COVID with people who took the vaccine but got infected.
|
|
|
Funny how when some watch Fox, they get "the Vax is the devil"
|
|
|
@philimac you were just telling me about this earlier
|
|
|
@night
My only observation was, if people aren't dying from it, then every infection is one more person carrying antibodies. Granted not the ideal.
Obviously leaving unchecked could be catastrophic, but singling out and blaming the unvaxxed has and will prove useless. There are those who will get vaxxed and those who will never. Regardless of the pressures placed on society.
None of this is pointed to any one person. Just a general statement.
|
|
|
�I wonder how many of you people that don't trust the FDA, CDC, vaccines, etc, had offspring that went through the public school system�
That's really a dumb statement. It has nothing to do with other vaccines or being 'anti vax', as much as you'd like to paint people that don't want to take it, it has to do with THESE particular vaccines.
Why don't I trust the fda, nih or cdc? There's been a concerted effort on their part, as well as the who, to smear any and all alternative treatments like Ivermectin and Hydroxychlorquin as well as other treatments doctors were doing and posting on their web sites in order to share information, in these cases the ftc got involved in order to stop them.
Why? Because if it was shown that Ivermectin and/or Hydroxy were effective against covid the vaccines wouldn't have gotten the 'emergency use authorization'.
Think about it.
If you're in a pandemic and it's as deadly as the government claims it is, wouldn't you want every tool in your tool bag to combat it in order to reach 'heard immunity' as fast as possible? Yet the fda REFUSES to review Dr. Kory's and his groups research on Ivermectin even though between them they've published over 2000 peer reviewed papers and Kory's written most of the protocols for emergency treatment for covid patients. Yet if you go on any social media site or put out a video on utube on Ivermectin, Hydroxy or another treatment other than the vax it's IMMEDIATELY stricken.
Science is about asking questions and searching for answers yet these government agencies and the who are instead censoring the free flow of scientific ideas.
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
^I think you are absolutely wrong. If scientists at the NIH felt that Hydroxycholoroquine or Ivermectin actually worked, they would happy have added it to the arsenal against COVID. And these would have likely complement a vaccine, not get rid of the need for one. The Delta variant is clearly showing that we need all the help we can get.
The jury's still out on Ivermectin. We'll see what the large RCTs say.
|
|
|
*complemented
|
|
|
^+1
Been using Ivermectin on my mounts for 30+ years.
|
|
|
I've been taking it since last December. It's once a month, two little tablets one day, skip a day, and then take the other two on the third day.
The monthly cost is $12. Each has package contains four 11mg tablets.
No COVID, no symptoms, no problem and yes, I've been fully vaccinated since February. I buy it in Mexico over the counter, no questions asked.
|
|
|
The current vaccines are not FDA approved.
|
|
|
It's a de-wormer and Rx for dematophytes (ringworm)
|
|
|
I'm rooting for ivermectin in these big trials. We need all the help we can get.
|
|
|
'I think you are absolutely wrong. If scientists at the NIH felt that Hydroxycholoroquine or Ivermectin'
Won't happen if fauci doesn't want it to happen, and fauci DOESN'T want it to happen.
Yes. I believe fauci is blocking any and all research into any alternative treatments because if they were found to be effective, which Hydroxy has been shown to be and has recently been acknowledged to be by everyone but the fda, nih,cdc & who, the vaxs' would lose their emergency use status if they were recognized by the fda, nih, cdc as effective.
Kory has sent the fda all of the FLCCC's research data and methods on Ivermectin and begged them to review it since summer of 2020, but they've so far refused to even take a cursory look at it. Why?
He even testified in front of Con gress to beg them to have the fda review their data. Still the fda has refused and the C-Span video and any other video of him testifying has been removed from utube. Why?
Personally, I haven't been under lock down one day since this got started, have traveled all over Calif. and Texas and have been on Ivermectin, prescribed by my doc, since early last July and am following the FLCCC's protocols. I haven't gotten it once. I've worked by my guys' sides, most of who don't & weren't wearing masks which I don't require, neither do I wear one. I still am and still don't wear one neither do most of them. Some have gotten the vax some haven't - not my business.
I'll stick with the drug that under went 10+ years of testing from R & D to fda approval and has over a 40 year track record rather then try one with a 3 - 4 month development record where it skipped most of the crucial testing steps and only an 8 month experimental trial track record.
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
@Finch
Did you straight up ask your Dr about being prescribed ivermectin? Any push back? Or was he/she OK with it?
|
|
|
'Did you straight up ask your Dr about being prescribed ivermectin? Any push back? Or was he/she OK with it?'
I've been going to my doc for 20 years in fact I was one of his first patients & we're about the same age and pretty good friends. So when this thing hit I started researching how doctors were treating it and what kind of results they were getting. He was doing the same thing and we'd talk on the phone every couple of weeks and compare notes. Somewhere along the line I heard about Ivermectin sent him links and videos and interviews which included links to Dr. Kory's initial research that Ivermectin MIGHT be promising. Kory's group formed the FLCCC in March 2020 I found a link and started following their findings and sending it to Bill. Finally in June I called him and asked if he'd be willing to give me a script if I came back to Cali, I was in Austin, he said absolutely and that he'd started taking it and had put his wife on it too, the kids he knew weren't as susceptible but keeps it in the house just in case. Bill also hasn't taken the vax and instead is taking Ivermectin & high doses of zinc and hasn't contracted it even though several of his patients have but recovered rather quickly which he attributes to the Ivermectin protocol. The protocol is body weight dependent ie the dosage depends on body weight.
Nope no push back at all, he's pretty open to alternative treatments. He even talked to a medicine man on my reservation about what he was doing to combat covid cause the res was hit so hard.
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
"Won't happen if fauci doesn't want it to happen, and fauci DOESN'T want it to happen.
Yes. I believe fauci is blocking any and all research into any alternative treatments because if they were found to be effective, which Hydroxy has been shown to be and has recently been acknowledged to be by everyone but the fda, nih,cdc & who, the vaxs' would lose their emergency use status if they were recognized by the fda, nih, cdc as effective."
You state this about Fauci as a fact without any evidence. Mechanistically and via large-scale RCT's, hydroxy is not effective. No evidence vaccines would lose their EUA. As illustrated right now with the Delta variant, we need all the treatments we can get. Just rampant, uninformed speculation on your part.
"Kory has sent the fda all of the FLCCC's research data and methods on Ivermectin and begged them to review it since summer of 2020, but they've so far refused to even take a cursory look at it. Why?
He even testified in front of Con gress to beg them to have the fda review their data. Still the fda has refused and the C-Span video and any other video of him testifying has been removed from utube. Why?"
NIH has carefully looked at the data, as shown by the slides I've linked to. Objectively, the data on Ivermectin is at best very mixed right now.
"Personally, I haven't been under lock down one day since this got started, have traveled all over Calif. and Texas and have been on Ivermectin, prescribed by my doc, since early last July and am following the FLCCC's protocols. I haven't gotten it once. I've worked by my guys' sides, most of who don't & weren't wearing masks which I don't require, neither do I wear one. I still am and still don't wear one neither do most of them. Some have gotten the vax some haven't - not my business."
Anecdotal evidence about one person's experience is hardly conclusive.
"I'll stick with the drug that under went 10+ years of testing from R & D to fda approval and has over a 40 year track record rather then try one with a 3 - 4 month development record where it skipped most of the crucial testing steps and only an 8 month experimental trial track record."
It's not true at all that vaccines "skipped most of the crucial testing steps." Vaccines have shown much higher efficacy consistently in large RCT's than Ivermectin has ever done. Period. But you're free to think what you want to think.
|
|
|
Been reading about good results for Invermectin. This is from Doctors and the few studies done. I thought the study was taken down in so I believe it was political vs the nature of it.
Just like CDC does not recommend HCQ.....but used all over the world for Covid. No money for Pharma....sooooo does not get pushed.
Here is what was given to Trump......
The eight drugs the president reportedly has been given:
Dexamethasone — President Trump was prescribed the steroid dexamethasone, a drug commonly used to treat asthma, rheumatoid arthritis and certain cancer, on Oct. 3. Sean Conley, DO, the president's physician, said the steroid was given to him in response to his blood oxygen levels dropping twice to 93 percent, according to STAT.
The steroid is typically recommended for hospitalized patients who need oxygen or are on ventilators. A study released in June showed that dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-third for those who had been sick for more than a week and were on mechanical ventilators, but had no impact on patients receiving no respiratory support. The study suggested that the drug may do more harm than good for patients with milder COVID-19 cases, since steroids hamper the body's immune system.
The drug is typically given to patients with severe COVID-19 to prevent an immune system overreaction. Some experts called it a "major breakthrough" for COVID-19 treatment, as it was the first drug shown to improve survival rates.
Remdesivir — President Trump was given his first dose of remdesivir Oct. 2, and he will be given a five-day course, CNN reported. Remdesivir, made by Gilead (who gave it the brand name of Veklury), was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1 after a study showed it caused a 31 percent faster recovery time compared to a placebo.
Remdesivir is an intravenous drug that works by targeting the system coronaviruses use to replicate themselves. It has been previously tested for Ebola, but hasn't been officially approved in any country. The FDA expanded its emergency use authorization for remdesivir Aug. 28, allowing it to be used on all hospitalized patients. It had previously only been authorized for those on ventilators or with low blood oxygen levels.
Regeneron's monoclonal antibody — On Oct. 2, the White House released a letter saying the president received a single 8-gram dose of Regeneron's monoclonal antibody cocktail, called REGN-COV2, the highest dose of the drug being tested in late-stage clinical trials, according to Politico.
Regeneron said in a Sept. 29 news release that a high dose of the drug caused the level of the virus to decrease in patients in an early clinical trial, indicating it may help COVID-19 patients recover faster. The trial seemed to show the drug had a bigger effect on patients who were infected with the virus but hadn't created high levels of their own antibodies against the virus. The drug uses synthetic versions of the antibodies patients' bodies create when they recover from a disease. In July, Regeneron received $450 million from Operation Warp Speed, the White House's task force to expedite COVID-19 vaccine development, to manufacture thousands of doses of the drug.
Regeneron CEO Leonard Schleifer, MD, PhD, told The New York Times that President Trump's medical staff reached out to the company for permission to use the drug, and that it was cleared with the FDA. Mr. Schleifer has known the president casually for many years and is a member of his golf club in Westchester County, N.Y., according to the Times.
Zinc — President Trump also has been given zinc, according to the Times, which helps the immune system fight outside bacteria and viruses. Zinc is an essential mineral that is naturally present in some foods and is available as a dietary supplement. There is no evidence that zinc helps fight COVID-19, and the FDA has issued warning letters to some companies that have tried to claim there's a link between zinc products and reduced risk of COVID-19.
Vitamin D — President Trump has been given vitamin D, the Times reported, which is good for bone health. There is no evidence vitamin D directly reduces the risk of COVID-19, and the FDA has sent warning letters to companies trying to sell vitamin D products as COVID-19 treatments. Vitamin D can also help reduce inflammation, according to the National Institutes of Health.
Famotidine — The generic name for Pepcid, famotidine is commonly used to treat ulcers, heartburn, indigestion and reduces the amount of acid in the stomach. A clinical trial testing the drug in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York wasn't able to recruit enough patients to properly evaluate its impact, according to Science.
Melatonin — Commonly used to treat insomnia, some studies have suggested that melatonin could also help COVID-19 patients with diabetes and obesity, according to CNN.
"The ability of melatonin to decrease viral infections in obese and diabetic patients is attributed to its characterists, such as potent antioxidant effects, improving the endogenous antioxidant system, immunomodulatory, and the strong anti-inflammatory capability," according to researchers from Mansoura University in Egypt.
A health summary for President Trump released in June showed that he was obese, at 244 pounds, the Times reported.
Aspirin — Commonly given to older patients to prevent heart disease, aspirin is also a popular painkiller. It can reduce the risk of blood-clotting, and evidence has shown COVID-19 can trigger blood clots in some patients. The president has mild heart disease, the Times reported.
|
|
|
Regarding the vaccines themselves this is a VERY good article as it relates to their efficacy.
We all heard.....95% effective. But what does that mean EXACTLY.
Why are manufacturers’ claims about vaccine effectiveness misleading? Pfizer and Moderna declined to share with the public the fact that there is another way to parse their data that has more real-world significance.
Examining a statistic called absolute risk reduction — the number of percentage points that an individual’s risk goes down if they do something “protective” — the two companies’ COVID vaccines barely make a dent at all, reducing someone’s risk of experiencing COVID symptoms (the clinical trials’ endpoint) by less than 1%. This is the practical number that people are likely to care about most.
Absolute risk, simply explained, is “the likelihood that an outcome will occur.” Relative risk “compares the risk of a health event … among one group with the risk among another group.”
Pfizer told the FDA that eight (of approximately 22,000) volunteers in its vaccine group developed a PCR-confirmed case of COVID-19, versus 162 of 22,000 volunteers in the placebo group. Moderna reported a similar spread — five out of 15,000 in the vaccine group versus 90 out of 15,000 in the placebo group.
When one does the math, the Pfizer clinical trial numbers showed: “The risk reduction in absolute terms [was] only 0.7%, from an already very low risk of 0.74% [in the placebo group] to a minimal risk of 0.04% [in the vaccine group].” (Dividing 0.7 — the difference between the two groups — by 0.74 is the mathematical calculation that produced the touted “95% effective” number).
.
.
.
.
.
Soooo for .04% absolute risk we are told to get the jab.
Using THEIR same calculations....taking .04 and dividing it by .74 still gives you 95% as well.
CONCLUSION:
The vaccine does not provide any statistical significance of deterring one from getting Covid vs NOT getting the shot.
PS I also downloaded the Pfizer FDA submit-al to confirm this article. Read all 53 pages. Its true!!
|
|
|
^Analysis is misleading. Those numbers represent a trial run of 30 days after the 2nd shot. If you ran the trial for a much longer period of time, representative of what actually happens in the real world, you're going to get much larger absolute risks of getting COVID, and there will be a significant difference between vaccine and no vaccine.
|
|
|
I think there's one thing we can l agree on. That's beating covid. Whether it be the vaccine or some therapy not purposed to help, but does.
Off topic, but has there been any info about reinfections for covid survivors? We've been hearing about the vaccine patients getting covid. From a the UK, the estimate is 40 percent of new infections are those who were vaccinated.
|
|
|
sales pitch
quickstudyguide.com
I don't know what to think or trust anymore
what do I do??
|
|
|
"Off topic, but has there been any info about reinfections for covid survivors?"
I haven't seen any from the Delta variant, and I wish there were more on this. It's important, as a lot of people have had COVID already. We do know from previous studies that people who have been infected and had either a positive PCR or positive antibody test have a similar level of protection against (re)infection as people who have taken the vaccine. There are a few papers on this, some peer reviewed. The exception is in a Danish study that showed those 65 and older had only approximately a 47% level of protection against reinfection, but that is one study. I would expect that reinfection numbers for Delta would be comparable to vaccine numbers.
|
|
|
"I haven't seen any from the Delta variant"
For the continued push to get more people vaxxed, hopefully the protection is as good or better than people with natural covid antibodies. Otherwise it will likely push more away from getting stabbed. Or at least prove that getting the Vax provided some sort of protection.
|
|
|
'It's not true at all that vaccines "skipped most of the crucial testing steps." Vaccines have shown much higher efficacy consistently in large RCT's than Ivermectin has ever done. Period. But you're free to think what you want to think.'
Wow that's blowing A LOT of smoke.
Yes as a matter of fact it is true. ALL of them have missed crucial testing phases that other vaxes go through during normal circumstances. That's just common sense and simple math - 120 months >>>>> 6 - 9 months. You're welcome.
How did they cram 10 years (120 months) of R & D and testing into 3 - 4 months? Worm hole?
It's idiotic to think otherwise.
Even if it took them 6 or 9 months to get to a viable vax it wouldn't matter cause they still weren't subjected to the same tests that other drugs go through and/or attain the same kind of results from each test other vaxes have to get when they go through the normal process.
An not according to the flccc, the fda has refused to look at their data or any other data on Ivermectin. But the fda and nih are censoring any information on it.
'Anecdotal evidence about one person's experience is hardly conclusive.'
Well, I don't really care what you think or don't think or your opinion about any of this. Just the idea that you honestly believe that these particular vaccines have gone through the same amount of testing and produced the same kind of results that other vaccines/drugs have to go through and produce under the normal 10 year average period, shows you have absolutely no credibility what so ever. Especially when you consider that several of the tests/trials last as long as 2-3 years from start to finish.
I guess they've figured out how to compress the time it takes to properly run and evaluate those tests into days rather than 20 - 30 months?
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
@Atticus Finch
You said "skipped most of the crucial testing steps" which is an ignorant thing to say. All of the vaccines went through proper Phase 1-3 trials consisting of a large amount of people and passed these with flying colors. That is not skipping "most of the crucial testing steps."
And they didn't cram 10 years of R&D testing into 3-4 months. Ridiculous. They've been testing mRNA vaccine technology for years. In humans since 2017.
"But the fda and nih are censoring any information on it."
Again, another ignorant false statement you make. I just posted earlier in this blog a ton of information about ivermectin given out by the NIH to the public. But believe what you want to believe, Go ahead.
"Just the idea that you honestly believe that these particular vaccines have gone through the same amount of testing"
I never said they did. You said they skipped "most of the crucial testing steps" which is an outright lie.
|
|
|
U2 should take some Ivermectin and get a room
Before you use up all the internet bandwidth
|
| There are 48 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
