The lockdowns accomplished absolutely nothing!

lenna · Oct 30, 2020

good thing we no longer stone people for makiong false prophecies

no matter who wins, it ain't gonna be pretty

but you can have the vaccine. take a shot for me too

Moses_Young · Oct 30, 2020

Scribe said:

What world do you live in? Vaccine refusers are healthier than the vaccine-dependent, and the only way govts therefore convince an intellectually astute population to be vaccinated is via force or coercion. And since when has any pro-vaxxer said "oh well, that's on them"? Instead, they scream, "My vaccine won't work unless every one in this world gets vaccinated". And those who get the sickness from the vaccine are used as "proofs" that anti-vaxxers can infect the vaccinated.

Why do you think Little Willy Gates is going on about how multiple doses of his covid-poison will be needed? And why do you think that the intent of the liability-immune vaccine manufacturers is not to prevent the disease, but instead, to reduce its symptoms? How would one ever prove that one's symptoms would have been the same or better without a vaccine?

GaryA · Oct 30, 2020

Moses_Young said:

Which would then further prove that the vaccine does not work.

lenna · Oct 30, 2020

Moses_Young said:

Nehemiah6 · Oct 30, 2020

Scribe said:

There is no "the vaccine". Several different vaccines have been produced in different countries. And the one tested in the UK was as abysmal failure. Moderna's vaccine has not really been proven effective:

"The early data Moderna has provided is based on phase 1 trials which are meant to evaluate the safety and not the efficacy of the vaccine. Moreover, health experts have raised concerns that the data was not sufficient to judge the vaccine. For instance, the company provided data on eight of the 45 subjects who took part in the early study and did not provide data on the ages of the subjects - an important factor as COVID-19 is more serious for older patients."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/greats...ernas-covid-19-vaccine-fails/?sh=66b6c598156c

Furthermore, since flu vaccines have historically has a success rate of only 10-40%, the same or almost the same result should be expected for coronavirus (another form of the flu virus). And no one should ignore the risk of death through vaccination. People who took the flu vaccines have died just from being vaccinated. Those figures have generally been under-reported.

oldethennew · Oct 30, 2020

I've posted this before -
hub and I had our last and only flu shot in 99',
and have not had the flu since...
make of this what u will...

Scribe · Oct 30, 2020

Nehemiah6 said:

A quick google search will yield information about the UK AstraZeneca vaccine that was briefly paused because of ONE patient possibly having a serious adverse reaction has already resumed, but you are exaggerating facts and making up stories. As if you hate the idea of a successful vaccine. It is way to easy to google that is why I suspect dishonesty.
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-united-kingdom-3f3d4a9ed4fe4aecf76940a2187c1a45

The Moderna vaccine is nearing completion of 30K third phase and they expect to request Emergency Approval from FDA in November-Dec. The full blown FDA approval request, for making it available for everyone will obviously be requested after November. Most are saying we can realistically expect more than one type of vaccine by March 2021 at your local pharmacy, walmart, etc.
Moderna is planning to have 20 Million doses ready for emergency approval by end of 2020.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/moderna-will-have-20m-coronavirus-vaccines-ready-by-years-end

As to flu effectiveness. "recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine." (CDC)
And that equates to reduction in MILLIONS of hospitalizations and who knows how many deaths. Flu vaccines are very effective if matched to the particular virus. For example the Flucelvaxquad 2020 will protect you from 4 common types of flu. If you get a different type it does not mean that it was not effective. It was only designed for the four it was designed for.

COVID-19 is not the flu. It does not have the same destructive payload as the flu. The Moderna mRNA 1273 is not manufactured the same way, it cannot be compared to the flu vaccine and anyone who attempts to do so is just babbling made up nonsense based on raw ignorance.

Just because we have taken along time in the past to develop vaccines does not mean that we have not been successful with this unprecedented effort to fight a war on a global epidemic. We are proving what can be accomplished when money is no object and governments get behind an all out war effort to stamp out a virus. I hope we will learn from this and continue stamping out others with the same aggressive immunology machinery we have put into operation because of this pandemic. It is a great time to be alive and part of an example of human cooperation in science and immunology and government funding, as well as others who have contributed their own private billions to this effort. God bless America.

tourist · Oct 30, 2020

oldethennew said:

I think my last flu shot was either 2011 or 2012. No flu since then either.

Scribe · Oct 30, 2020

Nehemiah6 said:

As a follow up to my previous answer:

Testing was stopped after one British participant developed severe neurological symptoms consistent with a rare inflammation of the spinal cord called transverse myelitis. AstraZeneca testing had also been paused earlier in the summer.

Johnson & Johnson said it’s preparing to resume recruitment soon for its U.S. vaccine study. In a statement, the company didn’t disclose the nature of the volunteer’s illness but said a thorough evaluation “found no evidence that the vaccine candidate caused the event.”

This was not "an abysmal failure"

lenna · Oct 31, 2020

oldethennew said:

beatcha

never even had one and no thank you

lenna · Oct 31, 2020

when the current flu shot only has a 30% chance of success on any given year, and 50% when the flu gods smile, why would you fill your body with that nastiness year after year

the current flu shot only works for last year's flu anyway. smh

lenna · Oct 31, 2020

you might dislike my post Billy, but that does not keep it from being true

look it up.

from Web MD...the other site I visited, had the statistics I posted above. seems no 2 sites agree with the numbers...just like the pandmeic figures now

Because flu viruses mutate constantly and the vaccine wears off over time, you can’t get vaccinated once and expect to be covered for years, as you can with other diseases. The vaccine must be changed each year, in hopes of matching the ever-mutating viruses. And that’s been a challenge. On average, it’s been 40% effective, meaning it’s prevented illness 40% of the time. Since health officials started tracking it in 2003, effectiveness has varied from year to year, ranging from a low of 10% in 2004-05 to a high of 60% in 2010-11.

it is nonsensical to believe the covid vaccine will be the cure but you can medicate yourself with that thought if you wish

Scribe · Oct 31, 2020

Nehemiah6 said:

An additional follow up to my previous posts. You are correct there is no "the vaccine" singular, it is actually VACCINES plural.
9 are in third phase trials which means they were already found successful and safe in 2nd phase trials. 3rd phase includes 30K people, and 9 x 30K is 270,000 getting vaccinated in testing phase right now. All different types of vaccines, some using classical antigen methods but Moderna using mRNA which is where you muscles make the protein for immune system. It is fascinating stuff.

About 179 are in development. Not all are expected to be successful. The 9 in 3rd phase already are successful for all practical purposes. There will be an end to COVID19 for everyone who wants a vaccine by the first quarter of next year. GET YOUR HOPES UP!!! The science has moved on past all your negative conspiracy theories and they are all old wives tales at this point. Catch up! Google it.

EleventhHour · Oct 31, 2020

Scribe said:

The science was never IN those negative conspiracy theories or old wives details.... that is how the "Right" sensationaliszes.

Nehemiah6 · Nov 1, 2020

EleventhHour said:

Those who dismiss actual conspiracies are "conspiracy theories" do more damage than anyone else. Every time there is something that reflects very badly on the conspirators, the Leftists and the media make sure they call it a "conspiracy theory" rather than admit the truth and put people on the alert.

So now here is a Leftist Indian professor in the UK who has tried to present a scientific basis for no lockdowns and guess what? She got a taste of the Leftist hatred for the truth.

Anti-Lockdown Epidemiologist Intimidated, Shamed By Contagion Of Hatred And Hysteria
Authored by Professor Sunetra Gupta, op-ed via The Daily Mail

PART I
Lockdown is a blunt, indiscriminate policy that forces the poorest and most vulnerable people to bear the brunt of the fight against coronavirus. As an infectious diseases epidemiologist, I believe there has to be a better way.

That is why, earlier this month, with two other international scientists, I co-authored a proposal for an alternative approach — one that shields those most at risk while enabling the rest of the population to resume their ordinary lives to some extent. I expected debate and disagreement about our ideas, published as the Great Barrington Declaration. As a scientist, I would welcome that. After all, science progresses through its ideas and counter-ideas.

But I was utterly unprepared for the onslaught of insults, personal criticism, intimidation and threats that met our proposal. The level of vitriol and hostility, not just from members of the public online but from journalists and academics, has horrified me.

I am not a politician. The hurly-burly of political life and being in the eye of the media do not appeal to me at all. I am first and foremost a scientist; one who is far more comfortable sitting in my office or laboratory than in front of a television camera. Of course, I do have deeply held political ideals — ones that I would describe as inherently Left-wing. I would not, it is fair to say, normally align myself with the Daily Mail.I have strong views about the distribution of wealth, about the importance of the Welfare State, about the need for publicly owned utilities and government investment in nationalised industries.

But Covid-19 is not a political phenomenon. It is a public health issue — indeed, it is one so serious that the response to it has already led to a humanitarian crisis. So I have been aghast to see a political rift open up, with outright abuse meted out to those who, like me, question the orthodoxy.
At the heart of our proposal is the recognition that mass lockdowns cause enormous damage.

We are already seeing how current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results — to name just a few — include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health. Such pitfalls of national lockdowns must not be ignored, especially when it is the working class and younger members of society who carry the heaviest burden.

I was also deeply concerned that lockdowns only delay the inevitable spread of the virus. Indeed, we believe that a better way forward would be to target protective measures at specific vulnerable groups, such as the elderly in care homes. Of course, there will be challenges, such as where people are being cared for in their own multi-generational family homes.

I am certainly not pretending I have all the answers, but these issues need to be discussed and thrashed out thoroughly. That is why I have found it so frustrating how, in recent weeks, proponents of lockdown policies have seemed intent on shutting down debate rather than promoting reasoned discussion.

It is perplexing to me that so many refuse even to consider the potential benefits of allowing non-vulnerable citizens, such as the young, to go about their lives and risk infection, when in doing so they would build up herd immunity and thereby protect the lives of vulnerable citizens.

Yet rather than engage in serious, rational discussion with us, our critics have dismissed our ideas as ‘pixie dust’ and ‘wishful thinking’. This refusal to cherish the value of the scientific method strikes at the heart of everything I, as a scientist, hold dear. To me, the reasoned exchange of ideas is the basis of civilised society.

So I was left stunned after being invited on to a mid-morning radio programme recently, only for a producer to warn me minutes before we went on air that I was not to mention the Great Barrington Declaration. The producer repeated the warning and indicated that this was an instruction from a senior broadcasting executive. I demanded an explanation and, with seconds to go, was told that the public wouldn’t be familiar with the meaning of the phrase ‘Great Barrington Declaration’.

Nehemiah6 · Nov 1, 2020

PART II
And this was not an isolated experience. A few days later, another national radio station approached my office to set up an interview, then withdrew the invitation. They felt, on reflection, that giving airtime to me would ‘not be in the national interest’.

But the Great Barrington Declaration represents a heartfelt attempt by a group of academics with decades of experience in this field to limit the harm of lockdown. I cannot conceive how anyone can construe this as ‘against the national interest’.

Moreover, matters certainly are not helped by outlets such as The Guardian, which has repeatedly published opinion pieces making factually incorrect and scientifically flawed statements, as well as borderline defamatory comments about me, while refusing to give our side of the debate an opportunity to present our view.

I am surprised, given the importance of the issues at stake — not least the principle of fair, balanced journalism — that The Guardian would not want to present all the evidence to its readers. After all, how else are we to encourage proper, frank debate about the science?

On social media, meanwhile, much of the discourse has lacked any decorum whatsoever. I have all but stopped using Twitter, but I am aware that a number of academics have taken to using it to make personal attacks on my character, while my work is dismissed as ‘pseudo- science’. Depressingly, our critics have also taken to ridiculing the Great Barrington Declaration as ‘fringe’ and ‘dangerous’.

But ‘fringe’ is a ridiculous word, implying that only mainstream science matters. If that were the case, science would stagnate. And dismissing us as ‘dangerous’ is equally unhelpful, not least because it is an inflammatory, emotional term charged with implications of irresponsibility. When it is hurled around by people with influence, it becomes toxic.

But this pandemic is an international crisis. To shut down the discussion with abuse and smears — that is truly dangerous. Yet of all the criticisms flung at us, the one I find most upsetting is the accusation that we are indulging in ‘policy-based evidence-making’ — in other words, drumming up facts to fit our ideological agenda. And that ideology, according to some, is one of Right-wing libertarian extremism.

According to Wikipedia, for instance, the Great Barrington Declaration was funded by a Right-wing think-tank with links to climate-change deniers. It should be obvious to anyone that writing a short proposal and posting it on a website requires no great financing. But let me spell it out, since, apparently, I have to: I did not accept payment to co-author the Great Barrington Declaration. Money has never been the motivation in my career. It hurts me profoundly that anyone who knows me, or has even a passing professional acquaintance, could believe for a minute that I would accept a clandestine payment for anything.

I am very fortunate to have a house and garden I love, and I couldn’t ask for more material wealth than that. Far more important to me are my family and my work. Yet the abuse continues to flood in, increasingly of a personal nature.

I have been accused of not having the right expertise, of being a ‘theoretical’ epidemiologist with her head in the clouds. In fact, within my research group, we have a thriving laboratory that was one of the first to develop an antibody test for the coronavirus.

We were able to do so because we have been working for the past six years on a flu vaccine, using a combination of laboratory and theoretical techniques. Our technology has already been patented and licensed and presents a rare example of a mathematical model leading to the development of a vaccine.

Even more encouraging, however, is that there is now a groundswell of movements — Us For Them, PanData19 and The Price of Panic, to name but three — seeking to give a voice to those, like me, who believe that the collateral damage of lockdown can be worse than the virus itself.

On Thursday, a broad coalition was launched under the banner of Recovery. Drawing people from across the mainstream of political views, the movement is calling for balance and moderation in our response to Covid-19, backed by a proper public debate and a comprehensive public inquiry. I am delighted that it has received such a level of support. For, ultimately, lockdown is a luxury of the affluent; something that can be afforded only in wealthy countries — and even then, only by the better-off households in those countries.

One way to go about shifting our perspective would be to catalogue all the ways in which lockdowns across the world are damaging societies. At present, I am collaborating with a number of colleagues to do just this, under the banner www.collateralglobal.org.

For the simple truth is that Covid-19 will not just go away if we continue to impose enough meaningless restrictions on ourselves. And the longer we fail to recognise this, the worse will be the permanent economic damage — the brunt of which, again, will be borne by the disadvantaged and the young. When I signed the Great Barrington Declaration on October 4, I did so with fellow scientists to express our view that national lockdowns won’t cure us of Covid.

Clearly, none of us anticipated such a vitriolic response. The abuse that has followed has been nothing short of shameful. But rest assured. Whatever they throw at us, it won’t do anything to sway me — or my colleagues — from the principles that sit behind what we wrote.
* * *
Professor Sunetra Gupta is an infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/a...imidated-shamed-contagion-hatred-and-hysteria

Scribe · Nov 1, 2020

Nehemiah6 said:

PART II
And this was not an isolated experience. A few days later, another national radio station approached my office to set up an interview, then withdrew the invitation. They felt, on reflection, that giving airtime to me would ‘not be in the national interest’.

But the Great Barrington Declaration represents a heartfelt attempt by a group of academics with decades of experience in this field to limit the harm of lockdown. I cannot conceive how anyone can construe this as ‘against the national interest’.

Moreover, matters certainly are not helped by outlets such as The Guardian, which has repeatedly published opinion pieces making factually incorrect and scientifically flawed statements, as well as borderline defamatory comments about me, while refusing to give our side of the debate an opportunity to present our view.

I am surprised, given the importance of the issues at stake — not least the principle of fair, balanced journalism — that The Guardian would not want to present all the evidence to its readers. After all, how else are we to encourage proper, frank debate about the science?

On social media, meanwhile, much of the discourse has lacked any decorum whatsoever. I have all but stopped using Twitter, but I am aware that a number of academics have taken to using it to make personal attacks on my character, while my work is dismissed as ‘pseudo- science’. Depressingly, our critics have also taken to ridiculing the Great Barrington Declaration as ‘fringe’ and ‘dangerous’.

But ‘fringe’ is a ridiculous word, implying that only mainstream science matters. If that were the case, science would stagnate. And dismissing us as ‘dangerous’ is equally unhelpful, not least because it is an inflammatory, emotional term charged with implications of irresponsibility. When it is hurled around by people with influence, it becomes toxic.

But this pandemic is an international crisis. To shut down the discussion with abuse and smears — that is truly dangerous. Yet of all the criticisms flung at us, the one I find most upsetting is the accusation that we are indulging in ‘policy-based evidence-making’ — in other words, drumming up facts to fit our ideological agenda. And that ideology, according to some, is one of Right-wing libertarian extremism.

According to Wikipedia, for instance, the Great Barrington Declaration was funded by a Right-wing think-tank with links to climate-change deniers. It should be obvious to anyone that writing a short proposal and posting it on a website requires no great financing. But let me spell it out, since, apparently, I have to: I did not accept payment to co-author the Great Barrington Declaration. Money has never been the motivation in my career. It hurts me profoundly that anyone who knows me, or has even a passing professional acquaintance, could believe for a minute that I would accept a clandestine payment for anything.

I am very fortunate to have a house and garden I love, and I couldn’t ask for more material wealth than that. Far more important to me are my family and my work. Yet the abuse continues to flood in, increasingly of a personal nature.

I have been accused of not having the right expertise, of being a ‘theoretical’ epidemiologist with her head in the clouds. In fact, within my research group, we have a thriving laboratory that was one of the first to develop an antibody test for the coronavirus.

We were able to do so because we have been working for the past six years on a flu vaccine, using a combination of laboratory and theoretical techniques. Our technology has already been patented and licensed and presents a rare example of a mathematical model leading to the development of a vaccine.

Even more encouraging, however, is that there is now a groundswell of movements — Us For Them, PanData19 and The Price of Panic, to name but three — seeking to give a voice to those, like me, who believe that the collateral damage of lockdown can be worse than the virus itself.

On Thursday, a broad coalition was launched under the banner of Recovery. Drawing people from across the mainstream of political views, the movement is calling for balance and moderation in our response to Covid-19, backed by a proper public debate and a comprehensive public inquiry. I am delighted that it has received such a level of support. For, ultimately, lockdown is a luxury of the affluent; something that can be afforded only in wealthy countries — and even then, only by the better-off households in those countries.

One way to go about shifting our perspective would be to catalogue all the ways in which lockdowns across the world are damaging societies. At present, I am collaborating with a number of colleagues to do just this, under the banner www.collateralglobal.org.

For the simple truth is that Covid-19 will not just go away if we continue to impose enough meaningless restrictions on ourselves. And the longer we fail to recognise this, the worse will be the permanent economic damage — the brunt of which, again, will be borne by the disadvantaged and the young. When I signed the Great Barrington Declaration on October 4, I did so with fellow scientists to express our view that national lockdowns won’t cure us of Covid.

Clearly, none of us anticipated such a vitriolic response. The abuse that has followed has been nothing short of shameful. But rest assured. Whatever they throw at us, it won’t do anything to sway me — or my colleagues — from the principles that sit behind what we wrote.
* * *
Professor Sunetra Gupta is an infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/a...imidated-shamed-contagion-hatred-and-hysteria

I would not call this a conspiracy theory. She thinks that there is a better way than the unscientific closings stuff method. Now if she said that the illuminati was trying to silence her because they have a secret plan to rule the world through global lockdowns, then that would be a conspiracy theory.

EleventhHour · Nov 2, 2020

Nehemiah6 said:

That would be correct, a nation needs to be prepared and have a federal response in place, states do not have the resources to battle an epidemic individually.

A responsible leader would listen to an epidemiologist who knows that one case in January likely meant that there were already many more in the community.

Testing and contact tracing is how to halt a virus ... sadly they missed the boat and went to lock down and then even after that they did not do adequate job contact tracing ....................... instead encouraged people to not wear a mask and to go to rallies with no masks... adult peer pressure at its finest.

Again.. South Korea never went into lock down... why because they dealt with the virus by science not politics... and they were prepared because of previous pandemics.

And now we have both economic damage and death.................. and to be sure people being sick with an added new novel virus to the other circulating seasonal infections and just regular illness will push the health care system beyond its capacity and more people will die... of course who will be the people dying the "useless eaters" because I am sure they cannot afford $100, 000 treatment plan that the president received.

The only good news is doctors have learned about this virus, which takes time and the treatment options have improved and so more people are surviving.

EleventhHour · Nov 2, 2020

Nehemiah6 said:

Those who dismiss actual conspiracies are "conspiracy theories" do more damage than anyone else. Every time there is something that reflects very badly on the conspirators, the Leftists and the media make sure they call it a "conspiracy theory" rather than admit the truth and put people on the alert.

So now here is a Leftist Indian professor in the UK who has tried to present a scientific basis for no lockdowns and guess what? She got a taste of the Leftist hatred for the truth.

Anti-Lockdown Epidemiologist Intimidated, Shamed By Contagion Of Hatred And Hysteria
Authored by Professor Sunetra Gupta, op-ed via The Daily Mail

PART I
Lockdown is a blunt, indiscriminate policy that forces the poorest and most vulnerable people to bear the brunt of the fight against coronavirus. As an infectious diseases epidemiologist, I believe there has to be a better way.

That is why, earlier this month, with two other international scientists, I co-authored a proposal for an alternative approach — one that shields those most at risk while enabling the rest of the population to resume their ordinary lives to some extent. I expected debate and disagreement about our ideas, published as the Great Barrington Declaration. As a scientist, I would welcome that. After all, science progresses through its ideas and counter-ideas.

But I was utterly unprepared for the onslaught of insults, personal criticism, intimidation and threats that met our proposal. The level of vitriol and hostility, not just from members of the public online but from journalists and academics, has horrified me.

I am not a politician. The hurly-burly of political life and being in the eye of the media do not appeal to me at all. I am first and foremost a scientist; one who is far more comfortable sitting in my office or laboratory than in front of a television camera. Of course, I do have deeply held political ideals — ones that I would describe as inherently Left-wing. I would not, it is fair to say, normally align myself with the Daily Mail.I have strong views about the distribution of wealth, about the importance of the Welfare State, about the need for publicly owned utilities and government investment in nationalised industries.

But Covid-19 is not a political phenomenon. It is a public health issue — indeed, it is one so serious that the response to it has already led to a humanitarian crisis. So I have been aghast to see a political rift open up, with outright abuse meted out to those who, like me, question the orthodoxy.
At the heart of our proposal is the recognition that mass lockdowns cause enormous damage.

We are already seeing how current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results — to name just a few — include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health. Such pitfalls of national lockdowns must not be ignored, especially when it is the working class and younger members of society who carry the heaviest burden.

I was also deeply concerned that lockdowns only delay the inevitable spread of the virus. Indeed, we believe that a better way forward would be to target protective measures at specific vulnerable groups, such as the elderly in care homes. Of course, there will be challenges, such as where people are being cared for in their own multi-generational family homes.

I am certainly not pretending I have all the answers, but these issues need to be discussed and thrashed out thoroughly. That is why I have found it so frustrating how, in recent weeks, proponents of lockdown policies have seemed intent on shutting down debate rather than promoting reasoned discussion.

It is perplexing to me that so many refuse even to consider the potential benefits of allowing non-vulnerable citizens, such as the young, to go about their lives and risk infection, when in doing so they would build up herd immunity and thereby protect the lives of vulnerable citizens.

Yet rather than engage in serious, rational discussion with us, our critics have dismissed our ideas as ‘pixie dust’ and ‘wishful thinking’. This refusal to cherish the value of the scientific method strikes at the heart of everything I, as a scientist, hold dear. To me, the reasoned exchange of ideas is the basis of civilised society.

So I was left stunned after being invited on to a mid-morning radio programme recently, only for a producer to warn me minutes before we went on air that I was not to mention the Great Barrington Declaration. The producer repeated the warning and indicated that this was an instruction from a senior broadcasting executive. I demanded an explanation and, with seconds to go, was told that the public wouldn’t be familiar with the meaning of the phrase ‘Great Barrington Declaration’.

And hear I thought you believed all published scientists have been corrupted?

EleventhHour · Nov 2, 2020

*** here

The lockdowns accomplished absolutely nothing!

lenna

Guest

Moses_Young

Banned

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage

lenna

Guest

Nehemiah6

Senior Member

oldethennew

Banned

Scribe

Guest

tourist

Senior Member

Scribe

Guest

lenna

Guest

lenna

Guest

lenna

Guest

Scribe

Guest

EleventhHour

Guest

Nehemiah6

Senior Member

Nehemiah6

Senior Member

Scribe

Guest

EleventhHour

Guest

EleventhHour

Guest

EleventhHour

Guest