Sincerely Independent News & Opinions

cstv donate
For freedom through truth
Search
Filters
Search in the titles
Search in the content of articles

Everything you always wanted to know ……

Spread the freedom!

Dr. Michael Yeadon, biologist and immunologist, gives a fascinating explanation in a video message of approximately 30 minutes about the human immune system, about the mistakes made with the PCR tests, about the testing policy of the regimens and about the pitfalls that still await us .

He also has the solution how to get out of this crisis hoax.

The video message was posted on youtube but was censored there after 2 hours, removed.

Fortunately, his message can still be found on the website of the American Institute for Economic Research. There is also a full transcription (in English) available.

Since I suspect that Mark and Hugo are not sufficiently proficient in the English language and since I am sure that they have not understood anything of this matter at all, I have made a transcription in Dutch. Six months ago, Mark said they had to make 50% decisions with 100% knowledge. It does not seem that Mark has gained more knowledge and insights since then.

Well, let's hope they'll spend 30 minutes trying to understand what's going on, so they can stop when headless chickens continue to announce all their backward measures.

Here you will find the video message and the English transcription:

https://www.aier.org/article/an-education-in-viruses-and-public-health-from-michael-yeadon-former-vp-of-pfizer/

 

UPDATE: I HAVE FOUND THE VIDEO MESSAGE WITH DUTCH SUBTITLE. Thanks to Ron Bakker:

 

 

And here is the Dutch introduction and transcription:

This video offers one of the most erudite and informative insights on Covid-19 and the consequences of lockdowns. It was remarkable this week to see it showing up on YouTube and being forcibly removed just 2 hours after posting. The copy below is hosted on LBRY, a blockchain video application. In a year with an overwhelming amount of educational content this is one of the best we've seen.

 

De biography of the presenter:

 Dr. Michael Yeadon is an allergy and respiratory therapeutic area expert with 23 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry. He trained as a biochemist and pharmacologist and obtained his PhD in 1988 from the University of Surrey (UK).

 Dr. Yeadon then worked at the Wellcome Research Labs with Salvador Moncada with a research focus on the respiratory hyperresponsiveness and effects of pollutants, including ozone, and worked on drug discovery from 5-LO, COX, PAF, NO and pneumonia. With colleagues, he was the first to discover exhaled NO in animals and later induce NOS in the lungs via allergic triggers.

 He joined Pfizer in 1995 and was responsible for growing and delivering the portfolio of the Allergy & Respiratory pipeline within the company. He was responsible for target selection and development of new molecules into humans, led teams of up to 200 employees across all disciplines and won an Achievement Award for productivity in 2008.

 Under his leadership, the research unit invented oral and inhaled NVUs that yielded multiple positive clinical proofs of concept in asthma, allergic rhinitis and COPD. He has led productive partnerships, such as with Rigel Pharmaceuticals (SYK inhibitors) and was involved in the licensing of Spiriva and the acquisition of the Meridica (inhaler) company.

 Dr. Yeadon has published more than 40 original research papers and is now consulting and collaborating with a number of biotechnology companies. Before working with Apellis, Dr. Yeadon VP and Chief Scientific Officer (Allergy & Respiratory Research) at Pfizer.

 

Below is a transcript of the video in Dutch:

 My name is Dr. Michael Yeadon.

My original education was a first class degree in biochemistry and toxicology. Followed by a research-based PhD in Respiratory Pharmacology; and then I spent my whole life working on the research side of the pharmaceutical industry - both big pharma and biotechnology. My specific focus was on inflammation, immunology, allergy in the context of respiratory diseases (i.e. the lungs, but also the skin). So I would say I am kind of a deeply experienced researcher in inflammation, immunology and lung diseases.

I was initially concerned about our response to the coronavirus pandemic by the middle or end of April. It had become clear that when you consider the number of daily deaths versus the date the pandemic had turned. Really, thankfully, the wave was already fundamentally over and we would just see it fall for several months - and that's what it did. And so I got very concerned about the increasing restrictions on people's behavior and movement in my country and I saw no reason then and I still don't.

The government's response to emergencies is led by the scientific group that sits together under the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies or SAGE. Therefore, they must provide the government with scientific advice on what is appropriate to do. SAGE has gotten several things wrong, and that has led to advice that is inappropriate and has not only had terrible economic effects, but continued medical effects as people are no longer treated properly.

SAGE believed that since SARS-CoV-2 was a new virus, there would be no immunity in the population at all. So I think that's the first wrong. I remember hearing that and I was amazed, because I already knew - because I read the scientific literature that SARS-CoV-2 was 80% similar to another virus, which you may have heard of, called SARS and that traveled the world a little bit in 2003, and more than that: it's quite similar, in part, to cold-causing coronaviruses.

So when I heard that a coronavirus was spreading around the world, I was not as concerned as other people because I thought that since there are already four cold-causing coronaviruses, I thought a good portion of the population has already been exposed to one. of those viruses, and would likely have significant protective immunity. And to explain why I was so sure that everyone knows the story of Edward Jenner and vaccination, and the story of cowpox and smallpox. And that the old story was that milkmaids had a very clear complexion: they never suffered from things like smallpox, that if it wasn't deadly, it would leave permanent scars on your skin. And the reason they had the protection was that they were exposed to a more benign, related virus called cowpox.

Edward Jenner came up with the idea that if it's the cowpox that saves the milkmaid, he reasoned that if he could expose someone else to the cowpox, he could protect them from smallpox. Now he was doing an experiment that you can't do now - and he should never have done it - but apocryphal, or real, or maybe you're sick, we're not sure. Edward Jenner received some of the liquid from a person infected with cowpox. Relatively mild pustules that then disappear. And he got some of this, and he scraped it in the skin of a little boy, and a few weeks later he got some liquid from a poor person who died of smallpox and infected the boy. And see, the boy didn't get sick, and that brought forth the whole field of what is called vaccination. And vax, the vaccine is “vac”. It comes from "vaccus", the Latin name for cow. So we are really familiar with the principle of cross-immunization.

I've been thinking a lot about, you know, the vulnerable people in nursing homes and there's a realization that while people are very careful about using PPE and so on, but that only goes so far in some kind of home environment that people are pretty close to are each other in a care home. So the question I've had all year is, if one or two people, you know, got the virus in a nursing home, why wouldn't almost everyone get infected? And the truth, of course, is that they didn't. And one interpretation of that distinction is that a large proportion of people in care homes had pre-immunity.

At this time of year, about 1 in 30 people has a cold caused by one of these coronaviruses. And like the protection against smallpox provided by previous cowpox exposure, people exposed to the common cold caused by one of these coronaviruses are now immune to SARS-CoV-2. So 30% of the population was protected before the start. SAGE said it was zero - and I don't understand how they could possibly have justified that. There is a second, and equally fatal, inexplicable mistake they have made in their model. The percentage of the population so far infected by the virus, according to SAGE, is about seven percent. I know that's what they believe and you can see it in a document they published in September called “Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions” and it unfortunately says that over 90% of the population is still vulnerable.

It's incredibly wrong. And I'm just going to explain why: they based their number on the percentage of people in the country who have antibodies in their blood. And only the people who got sick the most actually caused and released antibodies in their bodies. So it is certainly true that the people were infected with many antibodies. But a very large number of people had milder symptoms, and even more people had none at all. And the estimate we can make is that those people have either not produced antibodies or are so low that they are no longer detectable.

A recent publication on the percentage of nursing home residents who have antibodies against the virus is very interesting. This time, they used high-sensitivity tests for antibodies and carefully selected residents who were never PCR positive: these are people who have never been infected. And they found that 65% of them had antibodies to the virus; they never got infected. So I believe there was a high prevalence of immunity in that population before the virus arrived. A big story in the media recently was that the percentage of people with antibodies against the virus in their blood decreased. This was raised as a concern that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 does not last very long. You know, anyone with any knowledge of immunity would just turn it down. It's not how immunity works against viruses - it would be T cells. So if the antibodies gradually decline over time - which they do - from spring to the present, the only plausible explanation is that the prevalence of the virus in the population is declining, which is why antibody production is gradually declining.

Less than 40% of the population is susceptible. Even theoretical epidemiologists would tell you that number is too small to support a consolidated and growing outbreak, community immunity, herd immunity. So, SAGE says we're not even close, and I'm telling you the best science, by the best scientists in the world, published in the best peer-reviewed journals, says they are wrong: that more than 60 of the population now is immune, and it's just not possible to have a big and growing pandemic.

Really good news, really good news, to hear that data is emerging from the clinical trials of vaccines, and we are seeing vaccines that not only raise antibodies, but also produce T cell responses. This is amazing; back to the right science, the right immunology. That's how immunity to viruses works. So, my surprise, and it's just annoying that when we talk about the percentage of the population that is still susceptible, we're only talking about antibodies, like seven percent of SAGE. Why aren't we talking about the 50% that have T cell immunity?

And so you might think, if Dr. Mike Yeadon tells you these things, how come the pandemic isn't over? Well, this may come as a surprise to you, but I think it's fundamentally over. The country has now been through almost a full cycle of the virus sweeping across the country, and we are at the end. London was terribly hit in the spring and sometime in early April they counted hundreds of deaths a day, people dying with symptoms similar to respiratory failure and inflammation. And right now, the number of people dying of SARS-CoV-2 in the capital is less than 10. So it's down 98 or something. And the reason is that there are now too few people in London who are susceptible to the virus to get bigger, amplify and have an epidemic. And, and they would have been hit by now, because they were the first place hit in the spring. And I think what we're seeing now in the Northeast and Northwest would be the dying embers from the spread of this virus. And I am very sorry that it is still true that a small number of people contract it, get sick and die.

So why isn't the media telling us the pandemic is over? It's not over yet, because SAGE says it isn't. So SAGE is made up of many scientists, from different disciplines - mathematicians and clinicians - and there are multiple committees. But I found to my surprise - and I'm actually going to use it - horror, that in the spring, all spring and summer, SAGE had no one on their committee that I would call a card bearer: immunologist; a clinical immunologist. I have to say I think in the spring and summer SAGE fell short of the expertise it had. They should have armed themselves, you know, with all the people around the table that needed to understand what was happening, and they didn't. People then asked me, "Well Mike, you know, if it's fundamentally over, why are we still getting hundreds of deaths a day from SARS-CoV-2?" And I've thought about this a lot. There is a test that is performed in which people have their nose and tonsils swabbed, and then a test (called a PCR test) is performed on it. And what they're looking for isn't the virus - you might think it's looking for the virus, but it's not. What they are looking for is a small piece of genetic sequence; it's called RNA. Unfortunately, that bit of RNA will not be found in people's tonsils and nose if they have just contracted the virus and are about to get sick, or they are already sick. It will also be found if they were previously infected weeks ago - or even, sometimes, a small number, months ago. Let me explain why that is.

If you are infected and you have fought the virus (which most people do), you have broken, dead pieces of virus. These are little things that are smaller than your cells that may spread all the way through your airways, embedded in pieces of mucus, perhaps in a cell of the airway lining. And so, over a period of weeks or months, you bring up cells that contain broken, dead bits of virus that you have conquered and killed. However, the PCR test cannot detect whether the viral RNA is from a live virus or from a dead virus (as I just described). So I think a lot of the so-called positives are actually what I call "cold" positives: they correctly identify that there is some viral RNA in the sample - but it's from a dead virus. It can't hurt them, they won't get sick, they can't pass it on to anyone else. So they are not contagious. That explains a large number of the so-called positive cases. These are people who defeated the virus. Why do we use this test that cannot distinguish between active infection and people who have overcome the virus?

This test has never been used in this way - and I've worked in this area. It's not an appropriate technique, it's one - it's the kind of technique you'd use for forensic purposes if you were trying to run a DNA test to determine if a person was at the scene of a crime. You wouldn't do these tests in a windy supermarket parking lot; what looks like plastic marquees; on picnic tables. It's not suitable at all - and it certainly shouldn't be done the way it's done. It is subject to many mechanical errors, we must say, handling errors. If this was a test used for legal purposes, for forensic purposes such as a DNA identity test, the judge would discard this evidence; would say it is not permissible. It produces positive results even when there is no virus at all. We call that a false positive.

As we have increased the number of tests per day, we have had to recruit less and less experienced laboratory personnel - and now we use people who have never worked professionally in this area. What that does is it increases the frequency of errors, and the effect of this is that the percentage of false positives goes up and up. So if you had a one percent false positive rate - which Mr Matt Hancock [the UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care] told us was about the number they had in the summer - then if you test a thousand people who not have any virus, ten of them would be amazingly positive anyway. If the prevalence of the virus was just one in a thousand, that's 0,1% - as the Office for National Statistics said it was all summer. And if you use the PCR test, only one will be positive. But if the percentage of false positives is only 10 percent, you will also get XNUMX false positives.

Some people said to me, "Well, a higher percentage of people will show up in community testing," so-called "Pillar 2" testing. Because the people have been instructed to come only when they have symptoms. But I mention BS (bullshit). I don't think that's true. I know many friends and family members who have been told by an employer, 'Well, you sat next to someone who tested positive, and I don't want you back to work until you get a negative test. I have seen information from many cities in the north - Birmingham was certainly one; Manchester was another; Bolton - where they were recommending (and I really think they were trying to be helpful) with pamphlets for people to come and test, and they said, "We're coming over to give you all a test because we want to detect this virus." If you start testing people, more or less randomly, instead of those who have symptoms, you end up with the same amount of virus in the population as the Office of National Statistics found, which was one in a thousand at the time. And I just told you that Matt Hancock confirmed over the summer that they had a false positive rate of about one percent. So that means that out of a thousand people, 10 would test positive, and it would be a false result, and only one would actually test positive.

This test is monstrously incapable of detecting who has a live virus in the respiratory tract. It is subject to multiple deformations that get worse as we head into winter. As the number of tests done per day increases, the number of mistakes made by these overworked, underexperienced lab workers increases. I think it is not unreasonable to give the best possible estimate of the false positive rate at this point - what is called the operational false positive rate is about five percent. Five percent of 300.000 is 15.000 positives. I think some of those positive results are real; I don't think there are many. The problem with this false positive issue is that it doesn't just stop with “positive cases”: it extends to people who are unwell and go to the hospital. So people going to the hospital with a positive test - and it could be a false positive, and I think most of them are right now - if you go to the hospital and you tested positive before, or you test positive in the hospital, you will now be counted as a Covid patient.

Although more people are in the hospital now than a month ago, this is normal in the fall. Unfortunately, people catch respiratory viruses and get sick, and some will die. I just don't believe it has anything to do with Covid-19 anymore. There are more people in intensive care beds now than a month or so ago. That's perfectly normal if we go from late fall to early winter: those beds are then used more often. But there are no more people than usual for this time of year, and we will not run out of capacity, especially at a national level. But I think you know how it goes now: if you were to die now, you'd be counted as a Covid dead. But that's not right; these are people who may have gone to the hospital with a broken leg, for example, but then they might test him positive, when it doesn't, they don't have the virus. It's a false positive, and if they die, they'll be called a Covid dead - and they aren't. They died of something else.

One of the most disturbing things I heard this year was Mr. Johnson telling us about the 'Moonshot' test that everyone should start taking often, maybe every day, is the way out of this problem. I tell you this is the way to keep us in this problem: if the number of tests is going to be even higher than we are already testing, then the percentage of false positive results will be much greater than is acceptable. It produces a huge number of false positives.

What we need to do is stop mass testing. Not only is it an insult to your freedom, it will not help at all: it will be hugely expensive and it will be a pathology of its own. We will be rejected by stupid people - mostly ministers - sorry to say, who are not educated, and don't understand statistics. If you test a million people a day with a test that gives a one percent false positive, 10.000 people a day will be wrongly told they have the virus. If the prevalence of the virus was 0,1%, as the Office of National Statistics said it was in the summer, then only one-tenth of that number, 1000, would be correctly identified. But you cannot distinguish between the 11.000. You don't know who really got the virus and who those false positives are. Moonshot, I think, will have a worse false positive rate. It is not repairable, nor is it necessary. The pandemic - which affected not only the people of the UK, but all of Europe - and probably very soon the whole world - will not return. Why doesn't it come back? They have immunity to T cells. We know this. It has been researched by the best cellular immunologists in the world.

Sometimes people will say, "Well, it looks like the immunity is starting to fade." You'll see statements like that sometimes, and when I saw the first headline like this one, I remember I was pretty confused because that's not the way immunology works. Think about it for a moment. If it did, it could kill you. When you had to ward it off, and if you did it successfully, it somehow didn't leave any marks in your body. Well, it leaves a mark in your body. The way you fought it involved certain pattern recognition receptors, enriching you, as it were, with memory cells that remember what they were fighting against. And when they see that thing again, it's really easy for them to get those cells back to work in minutes or hours, and they'll protect you. So the most likely explanation is that immunity will last a long time.

So I read a little bit more about this so-called immunity death - and realized they were talking about antibodies. Just incorrect to think that antibodies, and how long they last, is a measure of immune protection against viruses. I mean, I disagree. It says there have been some classic experiments done on people with birth defects in parts of their immune system, and some have congenital arrows, which means they can't make antibodies, and guess what, they're able to deal with respiratory problems . So I don't think it's harmful to have antibodies, although some people are concerned about the potential for boosting inflammation from antibodies, but I believe they are probably neutral, and you absolutely shouldn't believe the story that because the antibody drops out, you've lost immunity. Again, that's just not the way the human immune system works.

The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 is several years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that hit parts of the world 17 years ago called SARS, and remember that SARS-CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think this is the best comparison anyone can. to give. The evidence is clear. These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could find who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample and tested whether they responded to the original SARS, and they all did. They all have perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They are actually also protected against SARS-CoV-2 because it is so similar, it is cross immunity. So I would say the best data out there is that the immunity has to be robust for at least 17 years. I think it is quite possible that it is a life sentence. The style of the responses of these people's T cells was the same as if you were vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been preserved? And so I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be several years, and possibly lifelong.

There have only been a handful of people who seem to have been infected twice - now they are very interesting, we need to know who they are and understand them very well, they probably have certain rare immune deficiency syndromes. So I'm not pretending that no one ever gets infected again, but I'm pointing out that it's literally five people (or maybe 50 people). But the World Health Organization estimated a few weeks ago that 750 million people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 to date. That means most people don't get reinfected, and I can tell you why: it's normal. It's what happens with viruses, respiratory viruses. Some people have called for "Zero Covid" as if it were a political slogan. And there are some people I've heard calling for it almost every day; they are completely unsuitable to tell you anything.

Something that is very important to know is that SARS-CoV-2 is an unpleasant virus. There is no doubt about it, but it is not what you were told in the spring. We were originally told it would kill maybe three percent of the people - which is horrifying. That's 30 times worse than the flu. We always overestimate the lethality of new infectious diseases when we face the storm. I believe the real death rate of Covid-19, the real threat to life, is the same as the seasonal flu.

So there is no reason to want to try to bring Covid to zero. It's bullshit - biology just isn't like that. And all the resources I've heard have suggested, as ways to get us there, are far more harmful and pathological, I'd say, than the virus itself. It's just not possible to get rid of every single copy of the Covid-19 virus, and the means to get you there would destroy society. Forget the cost - while it would be huge - it would destroy your freedom, you wouldn't have to go out until you are tested and get your result back. And I've described how the false positive rate would destroy it from a statistical perspective. I don't believe it can be: it's not scientifically realistic, it's not medically realistic, and it's not what we've ever done.

When the virus hit the UK in late winter and early spring, I was also concerned, because we were told at the time that maybe three percent could die. So when the Prime Minister called for a lockdown, I was not happy about it, but I understood we had to try this. But it's important to understand that when we look at the profile of the pandemic as it passed through the population, it was clear that the number of infections was decreasing every day. We had passed the peak a long time before the lockdown started. So we took all that pain, that locked up pain that lasted several weeks - I don't remember exactly how many weeks - we took it for nothing. If there was a really significant effect of lockdown on the number of people who died, or its rate, you should at least be able to distinguish them. Like, these people were locked up, and this one wasn't - and you can't. The shapes of all heavily infected countries are the same, whether they were locked or not. They don't work. I don't know why anyone is pushing you into this corner.

I don't think we really know why some countries were hit harder than others, but I have to say that scientifically I think smart money is a mixture of forces. One of them would be this cross immunity. While China had a terrible time in Wuhan, in Hubei province, it hasn't spread anywhere else in the country, and I guess that meant because many of them had this cross-immunity. And I think neighboring countries generally had a lot of cross immunity. So that's one possibility. The other, however, is in terms of the severity of what the virus has done to a particular population. We have seen devastating consequences in countries like the UK and in Belgium, France, and maybe even Sweden, and much smaller numbers of deaths in other countries like Greece and Germany. And you might think, "Well, was that something they did?" And I wish it were true because if it was something we did we could learn from it and do it and it would work in the future. But there is no evidence that it was something humans did. The passage of this virus through the human population is a completely natural process that completely ignored our futile attempts to control it.

So there is a theory - I don't like the name - but it's called 'dry tinder'. As people in a country who are vulnerable to dying in the winter (usually from respiratory viruses), if you have a very mild winter season like the UK did - we had very mild seasonal flu last year and the year before and we did Sweden too - what happens then is that there are a greater number of very vulnerable people who are even older than normal, and - and I think that's why we've suffered quite a lot of deaths. It was still only 0,06% of the population, which corresponds to approximately four weeks of normal mortality. But countries that have had very harsh winters lately, and Greece and Germany have certainly had a very deadly winter flu in the last two years. I think they had a smaller population of very vulnerable people back then, and that's the main reason they lost fewer people. It has nothing to do with locking, nothing to do with testing or tracking or tracing. Personally, I don't think any of these measures made any difference. So Belgium and the UK and Sweden were particularly vulnerable, while neighboring Nordic countries - I'm tired of hearing about this, idea that they were incarcerated and that it was therefore saving them and fearing that the other Nordic countries had normal flu epidemics. Like the last two or three years Sweden has, like the UK, had very mild epidemics: you can just look at the number of deaths, which is below the norm for the UK and Sweden. And now we have an above normal, higher than normal number of deaths from Covid.

Now there may be other reasons, I am not saying there are none, but I think those two are the most important - the degree of previous immunity and the so-called “dry tinder”, which is a vulnerable part of the population, as a result. of whether or not the seasonal flu is severe - I think that explains most of that. And it's just adolescent and a little silly that our government and advisers are telling you that the things you need to do that never worked in the past, like lockdown, will make some difference to the transmission of respiratory viruses. I don't believe it for a moment. There is no scientific evidence behind it, and there are much stronger scientific hypotheses that do explain it. You might think that, in terms of number of deaths - extra deaths - Covid has produced so much that this is going to be a terrible year for extra deaths. But surprisingly, it is not. 2020 is in line to be about eighth on a list since 1993.

About 620.000 people die in this country every year. They say we are in life and also in death - and it is true, it has been terrible for those personally affected by illness and death, but it is not particularly unusual in terms of the number of people who have died. So one of the things that I've noticed has happened in the past few years is that we almost seem to stand still, you know post science, post fact pretend - like facts don't matter. For someone who has been qualified and practiced as a professional scientist for 35 years, I find it very disturbing that I am not being heard. I don't think you should listen to me when I'm talking about highway design or anything. I don't know about highways or how to grow trees better, I don't know about that. But I know quite a bit about immunology, infection, inflammation, and the way infectious organisms move through a population.

I have no other reason to give this interview other than that I really care what happens to my country - and we have to get out of it. And personally I believe the way forward is twofold, it is not difficult. First, we must immediately stop mass testing of the community - it only yields misleading and gray information, and yet we drive policies based almost entirely on it. It's absolutely wrong, we shouldn't be doing it. Use the tests in the hospital - I'm not saying don't test - don't go ahead with mass testing, and for God's sake, don't increase the number of tests. It is a pathology of its own that must be eradicated by good thinking people. And I'm afraid the people on SAGE, who provided the models, the predictions, the actions to be taken, that their work is so bad and obviously flawed - deadly incompetent, that you shouldn't do anything with these people anymore . They should be fired immediately. And the effect of that advice was: - Many innocent people have been killed by non-Covid causes, they should be fired and reassembled with the help of an appropriate group of skilled individuals. And especially important to avoid anyone who might even have the suggestion of a conflict of interest. I think we are on the edge of the abyss. I really hope we can withdraw.


Spread the freedom!

Share this article!

Subscribe now
Subscribe to
guest
May be your real name or a pseudonym
Not required
10 comments
eldest
newest most voted
Inline feedback
See all comments
CommonSenseTV
nl Dutch
X
10
0
What is your response to this?x
()
x