| NHS workers not happy 12:56 - Jan 23 with 13606 views | GoldenBear |
Protests against mandatory vaccines. Not going down to well it seems. Looks like the Government have underestimated how this has gone down with them. |  | | |  |
| NHS workers not happy on 15:57 - Jan 27 with 1062 views | Scotia |
Why is it always the same people on these expert panels?
Surely if these terrible adverse events were as frequent as you say they wouldn't have to keep resorting to the same group? We've been vaccinating people for over a year but it's the same group of people who've been banging on about unproven treatments since the start of the pandemic.
I notice Dr Malone and Peter McCulloch are there, along with an optometrist and psychiatrist for some reason.
It's basically the group of Dr's (ish) who support the use of HCQ and Ivermectin speaking to an American senator, by invitation I might add, who didn't have a problem with 3% of the US population dying during the pandemic to support the economy and advocated controlling the pandemic with mouthwash.
Nothing new here. Biased misinformation. |  | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 16:56 - Jan 27 with 1023 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| NHS workers not happy on 15:44 - Jan 27 by Whiterockin |
100% correct, its good of A Fans Dad to bring it to our attention, perhaps he is starting to see sense.
"However, the publication said that it had been shortly before he fell ill which had not allowed him to develop a sufficient level of antibodies." |
No, not just insufficient immunity, depressed immunity from the vaccine.
The evidence is clear, the Gov.UK admitted it months ago. | | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 17:58 - Jan 27 with 1003 views | Scotia |
| NHS workers not happy on 16:56 - Jan 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
No, not just insufficient immunity, depressed immunity from the vaccine.
The evidence is clear, the Gov.UK admitted it months ago. |
Did they? Just like they admitted they used scare propaganda you mean?
Only of course they didn't. | | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 18:41 - Jan 27 with 978 views | Catullus |
| NHS workers not happy on 16:56 - Jan 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
No, not just insufficient immunity, depressed immunity from the vaccine.
The evidence is clear, the Gov.UK admitted it months ago. |
WHAT? So now you are saying the vaccine leaves you more vulnerable to covid?
When did our government say that then? Do you have a link, a news story, any proof for what you claim? | |
| |
| NHS workers not happy on 19:01 - Jan 27 with 963 views | Ajack_Kerouac |
| NHS workers not happy on 18:41 - Jan 27 by Catullus |
WHAT? So now you are saying the vaccine leaves you more vulnerable to covid?
When did our government say that then? Do you have a link, a news story, any proof for what you claim? |
The vaccines lower your immunity for the first month or so. This is well known now. |  |
| "It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it" |
| |
| NHS workers not happy on 19:14 - Jan 27 with 951 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| NHS workers not happy on 18:41 - Jan 27 by Catullus |
WHAT? So now you are saying the vaccine leaves you more vulnerable to covid?
When did our government say that then? Do you have a link, a news story, any proof for what you claim? |
My what short memories you all have.
I posted the data some time ago, do you not remember about the "N" antibodies being reduced.
The description used to be on page 24 of the week 42 COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report.
Which after many forums picking up what it says has now been changed to page 23 and rewritten so that it no longer mentions that it may not improve with time.
They only admitted to this affect after 2 doses, but it is apparent during the first dose as well.
Add to that the studies that show the reduction of antiboies for 14 days after the vaccination and you can see why there are so many adverse events during that period.
"So now you are saying the vaccine leaves you more vulnerable to covid? "
Is this news to you?
Haven't you been following any of the statistics from England, Ireland, Scotland, Israel, Denmark and Germany?
Especially Scotland.
Didn't you see my posts on "Negative Efficacy"?
Didn't you realise what it meant? [Post edited 27 Jan 2022 19:16]
| | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 19:17 - Jan 27 with 947 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| NHS workers not happy on 18:41 - Jan 27 by Catullus |
WHAT? So now you are saying the vaccine leaves you more vulnerable to covid?
When did our government say that then? Do you have a link, a news story, any proof for what you claim? |
It’s true. More vulnerable to at least infection - initially the vaccine prevented serious illness but I’m finding more articles stating that people are developing immunity problems as the efficacy wanes (quite severely in some cases). |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| NHS workers not happy on 19:20 - Jan 27 with 944 views | Scotia |
| NHS workers not happy on 19:01 - Jan 27 by Ajack_Kerouac |
The vaccines lower your immunity for the first month or so. This is well known now. |
No they don't. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| NHS workers not happy on 19:21 - Jan 27 with 942 views | jack_lord |
| NHS workers not happy on 19:01 - Jan 27 by Ajack_Kerouac |
The vaccines lower your immunity for the first month or so. This is well known now. |
Where is it well known now exactly?
Real proper evidence would give you some credit.
The anecdotal and professional evidence I have seen and read completely contradicts you. |  |
| |
| NHS workers not happy on 19:26 - Jan 27 with 936 views | Catullus |
| NHS workers not happy on 19:17 - Jan 27 by Brynmill_Jack |
It’s true. More vulnerable to at least infection - initially the vaccine prevented serious illness but I’m finding more articles stating that people are developing immunity problems as the efficacy wanes (quite severely in some cases). |
Yes the efficacy wanes but the vaccines do not initially cause a vulnerability. | |
| |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:10 - Jan 27 with 904 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| NHS workers not happy on 19:26 - Jan 27 by Catullus |
Yes the efficacy wanes but the vaccines do not initially cause a vulnerability. |
Unfortunately they cause vulnerability to more than just COVID.
They cause old infections to flare up, it is quite clear from adverse events you don't believe in.
The VigiAccess shows.
Influenza (33950)
Herpes zoster (29234)
Nasopharyngitis (20222)
Pneumonia (7500)
Oral herpes (5444)
COVID-19 pneumonia (5197)
Cellulitis (4157)
Suspected COVID-19 (4023)
Urinary tract infection (3957)
Infection (3098)
Sinusitis (3073)
Asymptomatic COVID-19 (2951)
Rhinitis (2721)
Vaccine breakthrough infection (2415)
Sepsis (2049)
Appendicitis (1680)
Lower respiratory tract infection (1615)
Conjunctivitis (1504)
Bronchitis (1415)
Ear infection (1291)
Ophthalmic herpes zoster (1237)
Cystitis (1194)
Sweating fever (1192)
Vestibular neuronitis (1126)
Herpes simplex (1075)
Tonsillitis (969)
Erysipelas (945)
Dysentery (885)
Pharyngitis (881)
Herpes virus infection (879)
Viral infection (833)
Encephalitis (811)
Mastitis (805)
Genital herpes (750)
Diverticulitis (732)
Labyrinthitis (681)
Myelitis (630)
Abscess (613)
Gastroenteritis (592)
Upper respiratory tract infection (591)
Septic shock (585)
Pustule (562)
Injection site cellulitis (545)
Laryngitis (520)
Pneumonia aspiration (499)
Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (494)
Post viral fatigue syndrome (480)
Rash pustular (469)
Localised infection (454)
They are just the ones under Infections and infestations (266,838)
Of course they are all made up by anti-vaxxers. | | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:35 - Jan 27 with 894 views | Scotia |
It's on authorea. Which I could publish a paper on right now if I wanted to.
It's also written by Peter McCullogh. As I asked earlier, why is it always the same, very small, group of people contributing to this debate?
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a reference to Malone in there somewhere.
Out of 10's of millions of medical and research scientists in the world it usually seems to boil down to a few dozen (at most) people who started out as anti lockdown activists, moved to anti mask and then pro ivermectin / hydroxychloroquine and now bump their gums about mRNA vaccines.
Why are the other 99.9999% not raising this as an issue?
So that is gov.Uk admitting that a single dose of vaccine actually reduces immunity? Prof explained that previously.
Don't forget you mentioned how wonderfully effective a single dose was just yesterday. Based on ONS stats, but you didn't understand why. I'm pretty certain you still don't.
Edit. No malone reference but the other authors are a computer scientist and a "Dr" who only uses natural remedies to treat cancer. So basically rubbish. [Post edited 27 Jan 2022 21:43]
| | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:38 - Jan 27 with 890 views | Scotia |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:10 - Jan 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Unfortunately they cause vulnerability to more than just COVID.
They cause old infections to flare up, it is quite clear from adverse events you don't believe in.
The VigiAccess shows.
Influenza (33950)
Herpes zoster (29234)
Nasopharyngitis (20222)
Pneumonia (7500)
Oral herpes (5444)
COVID-19 pneumonia (5197)
Cellulitis (4157)
Suspected COVID-19 (4023)
Urinary tract infection (3957)
Infection (3098)
Sinusitis (3073)
Asymptomatic COVID-19 (2951)
Rhinitis (2721)
Vaccine breakthrough infection (2415)
Sepsis (2049)
Appendicitis (1680)
Lower respiratory tract infection (1615)
Conjunctivitis (1504)
Bronchitis (1415)
Ear infection (1291)
Ophthalmic herpes zoster (1237)
Cystitis (1194)
Sweating fever (1192)
Vestibular neuronitis (1126)
Herpes simplex (1075)
Tonsillitis (969)
Erysipelas (945)
Dysentery (885)
Pharyngitis (881)
Herpes virus infection (879)
Viral infection (833)
Encephalitis (811)
Mastitis (805)
Genital herpes (750)
Diverticulitis (732)
Labyrinthitis (681)
Myelitis (630)
Abscess (613)
Gastroenteritis (592)
Upper respiratory tract infection (591)
Septic shock (585)
Pustule (562)
Injection site cellulitis (545)
Laryngitis (520)
Pneumonia aspiration (499)
Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (494)
Post viral fatigue syndrome (480)
Rash pustular (469)
Localised infection (454)
They are just the ones under Infections and infestations (266,838)
Of course they are all made up by anti-vaxxers. |
What a pile of nonsense.
The covid vaccine makes you more vulnerable to flu? How on earth does that work? | | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:50 - Jan 27 with 883 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:38 - Jan 27 by Scotia |
What a pile of nonsense.
The covid vaccine makes you more vulnerable to flu? How on earth does that work? |
Because it lowers the Immune system for a period of time, I have pointed this out to you numerous times and you do wish to believe it.
These people are all lying anti-vaxxers as far as you are concerned.
Notice sepsis, just as reported in the Pfizer Trial.
You are clueless. [Post edited 27 Jan 2022 21:52]
| | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:52 - Jan 27 with 880 views | Scotia |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:50 - Jan 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Because it lowers the Immune system for a period of time, I have pointed this out to you numerous times and you do wish to believe it.
These people are all lying anti-vaxxers as far as you are concerned.
Notice sepsis, just as reported in the Pfizer Trial.
You are clueless. [Post edited 27 Jan 2022 21:52]
|
To flu, a completely different virus? And that's just the first in a long list.
So how does the covid vaccine "lower the immune system" to make you more vulnerable to flu?
Edit. Thanks for the ad hominem attack. Again.
I also noticed Genital Herpes on there, any proof the reports weren't a handy way to explain a trip to the local massage parlour on the way home? [Post edited 27 Jan 2022 21:55]
| | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:55 - Jan 27 with 877 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:35 - Jan 27 by Scotia |
It's on authorea. Which I could publish a paper on right now if I wanted to.
It's also written by Peter McCullogh. As I asked earlier, why is it always the same, very small, group of people contributing to this debate?
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a reference to Malone in there somewhere.
Out of 10's of millions of medical and research scientists in the world it usually seems to boil down to a few dozen (at most) people who started out as anti lockdown activists, moved to anti mask and then pro ivermectin / hydroxychloroquine and now bump their gums about mRNA vaccines.
Why are the other 99.9999% not raising this as an issue?
So that is gov.Uk admitting that a single dose of vaccine actually reduces immunity? Prof explained that previously.
Don't forget you mentioned how wonderfully effective a single dose was just yesterday. Based on ONS stats, but you didn't understand why. I'm pretty certain you still don't.
Edit. No malone reference but the other authors are a computer scientist and a "Dr" who only uses natural remedies to treat cancer. So basically rubbish. [Post edited 27 Jan 2022 21:43]
|
Why don't you actually read the study instead of attacking the authors as you do for everything else. | | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:57 - Jan 27 with 872 views | Scotia |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:55 - Jan 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Why don't you actually read the study instead of attacking the authors as you do for everything else. |
Because they aren't qualified to write such a study. It's rubbish.
Answer the question, why is it always the same people? | | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 22:15 - Jan 27 with 857 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:57 - Jan 27 by Scotia |
Because they aren't qualified to write such a study. It's rubbish.
Answer the question, why is it always the same people? |
Because they are the only ones prepared to take on both the governments and big pharma.
So you brand it rubbish without reading it, absolutely classic. | | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 07:52 - Jan 28 with 804 views | Scotia |
| NHS workers not happy on 22:15 - Jan 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Because they are the only ones prepared to take on both the governments and big pharma.
So you brand it rubbish without reading it, absolutely classic. |
So out of the 10's of millions of Dr's in the world, not to mention researchers and other medical staff it's the same handful all of the time becasue the others don't want to take on the establishment.
Big pharma have no influence on the vast, vast majority of medical staff at all. I bet most practicing Dr's have no interest in them whatsoever, and quite possibly aren't sure which company makes the drugs that they are presrcibing. Especially so outside of the states.
Every Dr, nurse or paramedic I know would love to take on the government over this pandemic if they could. In fact most do, but concerning a lack of historical funding, staff shortages and restricitons in place rather than not using miracle cures and vaccination deaths becasue these basically don't exist in anything other than tiny numbers.
That is just paranoid rubbish.
It's the same group who were banging on about lockdowns not being needed, masks not being needed, the illness being easy to treat and are now turning their attentions to the vaccine. They are just anti this pandemic and anything relating to it becasue it inerferes with their politics. It is those who are attempting to control.
You tell me why it isn't rubbish. I'm not prepared to listen to a holisitc therapist, computer scientist (lead author), a pharmacologist who specialises in natural compound cancer treatments and a well known anti vax American cardiologist talking about immunity. There isn't an immunologist among them.
Why do you believe them? What have you seen in the paper that you think will stand up to scrutiny and prove that the vaccines have a negative impact on immunity?
Any proof of gov.uk admitting to the vaccines reducing immunity after the first dose or was that a lie and the statement based on your expert analysis?
Edit. I thought you like to read this about the lead author of that paper.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience-environment/dr-stephani
[Post edited 28 Jan 2022 7:54]
| | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 15:23 - Jan 28 with 747 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| NHS workers not happy on 07:52 - Jan 28 by Scotia |
So out of the 10's of millions of Dr's in the world, not to mention researchers and other medical staff it's the same handful all of the time becasue the others don't want to take on the establishment.
Big pharma have no influence on the vast, vast majority of medical staff at all. I bet most practicing Dr's have no interest in them whatsoever, and quite possibly aren't sure which company makes the drugs that they are presrcibing. Especially so outside of the states.
Every Dr, nurse or paramedic I know would love to take on the government over this pandemic if they could. In fact most do, but concerning a lack of historical funding, staff shortages and restricitons in place rather than not using miracle cures and vaccination deaths becasue these basically don't exist in anything other than tiny numbers.
That is just paranoid rubbish.
It's the same group who were banging on about lockdowns not being needed, masks not being needed, the illness being easy to treat and are now turning their attentions to the vaccine. They are just anti this pandemic and anything relating to it becasue it inerferes with their politics. It is those who are attempting to control.
You tell me why it isn't rubbish. I'm not prepared to listen to a holisitc therapist, computer scientist (lead author), a pharmacologist who specialises in natural compound cancer treatments and a well known anti vax American cardiologist talking about immunity. There isn't an immunologist among them.
Why do you believe them? What have you seen in the paper that you think will stand up to scrutiny and prove that the vaccines have a negative impact on immunity?
Any proof of gov.uk admitting to the vaccines reducing immunity after the first dose or was that a lie and the statement based on your expert analysis?
Edit. I thought you like to read this about the lead author of that paper.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience-environment/dr-stephani
[Post edited 28 Jan 2022 7:54]
|
Great link that. You do know Roundup was banned in many countries?
You are totally clueless about how big pharma runs the medical services in the USA, I suggest you do some reading about it.
How the Hospital protocols are controlled by the CDC & FDA and that nice Dr Fauci. Who have now stopped the use of Monoclonal Antibodies as well as HCQ & Ivermectin.
How any doctor that speaks the truth about vaccine adverse events or early treatment protocols loses not just their job but also the right to practice medicine.
The UK is not run in the same way at all.
The UK government won't talk about the first dose, just the Immunity depression of the second dose, they also don't talk about booster effects either.
But they don't need to.
It is apparent to anybody who understands numbers, like 6 is more than 3 that the ONS data on COVID & All Cause Mortality shows it without any shadow of doubt.
The fact that you can't understand what you are seeing is very sad.
But I will try one more time time to explain it to you so that anybody reading these posts will it see for themselves.
The average All Cause Mortality from the ONS report is 838/100,000.
The all cause mortality for the unvaccinated is 2187.1/100,000
The all cause mortality for the "Received only the first dose, less than 21 days ago" is 811.9/100,000.
Do you understand why there is a difference.
If you refer to the chart for Number Deaths by days after COVID19 vaccine in this link
https://vaersanalysis.info/2022/01/14/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-throug
You will see that in the first the deaths are highets closest to the vaccination date and after 13 days there were 9856 deaths after a vaccination.
It doesn't matter what caused the deaths, those deaths in the UK would be allocated to the Unvaccinated and not the one dose vaccinated as until 14 days after vaccination they are classed to be unvaccinated.
The same applies to COVID deaths during that period which will be in those deaths.
So the only reason that 1 dose looks good is because the first 13 days of deaths are added to the unvaccinated total.
Whereas all cause mortality for the "Received the second dose, less than 21 days ago" is even lower at 464.6/100,000 because they have 21 days worth of deaths, in the case of that VEARs data it is 11626 deaths to be transferred elsewhere. That elsewhere has never been made clear by the government, does it go on the unvaccinated or the 1 dose plus 21 days?
So I will ask you again do you believe that the Vaccines have prevented 373/100,000 deaths from any cause whatsoever? | | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 16:06 - Jan 28 with 742 views | Scotia |
| NHS workers not happy on 15:23 - Jan 28 by A_Fans_Dad |
Great link that. You do know Roundup was banned in many countries?
You are totally clueless about how big pharma runs the medical services in the USA, I suggest you do some reading about it.
How the Hospital protocols are controlled by the CDC & FDA and that nice Dr Fauci. Who have now stopped the use of Monoclonal Antibodies as well as HCQ & Ivermectin.
How any doctor that speaks the truth about vaccine adverse events or early treatment protocols loses not just their job but also the right to practice medicine.
The UK is not run in the same way at all.
The UK government won't talk about the first dose, just the Immunity depression of the second dose, they also don't talk about booster effects either.
But they don't need to.
It is apparent to anybody who understands numbers, like 6 is more than 3 that the ONS data on COVID & All Cause Mortality shows it without any shadow of doubt.
The fact that you can't understand what you are seeing is very sad.
But I will try one more time time to explain it to you so that anybody reading these posts will it see for themselves.
The average All Cause Mortality from the ONS report is 838/100,000.
The all cause mortality for the unvaccinated is 2187.1/100,000
The all cause mortality for the "Received only the first dose, less than 21 days ago" is 811.9/100,000.
Do you understand why there is a difference.
If you refer to the chart for Number Deaths by days after COVID19 vaccine in this link
https://vaersanalysis.info/2022/01/14/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-throug
You will see that in the first the deaths are highets closest to the vaccination date and after 13 days there were 9856 deaths after a vaccination.
It doesn't matter what caused the deaths, those deaths in the UK would be allocated to the Unvaccinated and not the one dose vaccinated as until 14 days after vaccination they are classed to be unvaccinated.
The same applies to COVID deaths during that period which will be in those deaths.
So the only reason that 1 dose looks good is because the first 13 days of deaths are added to the unvaccinated total.
Whereas all cause mortality for the "Received the second dose, less than 21 days ago" is even lower at 464.6/100,000 because they have 21 days worth of deaths, in the case of that VEARs data it is 11626 deaths to be transferred elsewhere. That elsewhere has never been made clear by the government, does it go on the unvaccinated or the 1 dose plus 21 days?
So I will ask you again do you believe that the Vaccines have prevented 373/100,000 deaths from any cause whatsoever? |
More diversion twaddle and BS anti-vax links.
You don't answer questions with more, different questions. Mine were.
Why do you believe them? What have you seen in the paper that you think will stand up to scrutiny and prove that the vaccines have a negative impact on immunity?
Any proof of gov.uk admitting to the vaccines reducing immunity after the first dose or was that a lie and the statement based on your expert analysis?
Also that question to me relates to a previous question to you, the answer is crucial to your understanding of these stats. To be blunt I don't think you do understand them at all.
Why do you think the first dose appears to be so successful? | | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 16:26 - Jan 28 with 738 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| NHS workers not happy on 16:06 - Jan 28 by Scotia |
More diversion twaddle and BS anti-vax links.
You don't answer questions with more, different questions. Mine were.
Why do you believe them? What have you seen in the paper that you think will stand up to scrutiny and prove that the vaccines have a negative impact on immunity?
Any proof of gov.uk admitting to the vaccines reducing immunity after the first dose or was that a lie and the statement based on your expert analysis?
Also that question to me relates to a previous question to you, the answer is crucial to your understanding of these stats. To be blunt I don't think you do understand them at all.
Why do you think the first dose appears to be so successful? |
Sealion.
Have you ever written a computer program to analyse the Statistical Process Control of a production line?
Have you ever written a computer program to calulate the Statistical Capability of a Machine's Critical dimensions?
Have you ever used used statistics in the process of of an 8 disciplined investigation?
If haven't don't try and tell me I don't understand even simpler statistics, because I have done all 3 of them.
Whereas you have shown you can't even tell the difference between 3 and 6.
No more attempts to answer your bullshit questions. | | | |
| NHS workers not happy on 18:51 - Jan 28 with 716 views | Catullus |
| NHS workers not happy on 21:55 - Jan 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Why don't you actually read the study instead of attacking the authors as you do for everything else. |
Maybe because when people who are largely discredited need to use an open access website to publish their findings, there's a good reason for it?
You have consistently taken "evidence" from websites dodgier than any Ponzi scheme who allow people to post pretty much anything. Authorea is not in the same class as some of them admittedly but anyone can open an account and post their articles.
Maybe I should call myself Dr Cat Ullus and post something! | |
| |
| NHS workers not happy on 19:05 - Jan 28 with 701 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| NHS workers not happy on 18:51 - Jan 28 by Catullus |
Maybe because when people who are largely discredited need to use an open access website to publish their findings, there's a good reason for it?
You have consistently taken "evidence" from websites dodgier than any Ponzi scheme who allow people to post pretty much anything. Authorea is not in the same class as some of them admittedly but anyone can open an account and post their articles.
Maybe I should call myself Dr Cat Ullus and post something! |
Yes how about you post something on those VigiAccess Adverse events that I posted.
You can explain why they have nothing to do with the vaccines.
Which were only for Infections and not all the other concerns.
Or you could post something on why a higher percentage of single and double vaccinated are getting COVID in the countries with the high Vaccination rates
ps far easier to knock the people than the data isn't it which you both do.
When will you actually challenge the data that they present. [Post edited 28 Jan 2022 19:06]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
