COVID-19, VACCINES & RULING CLASS DOMINATION AND CONTROL

April 8, 2020

Here are some general points to put things in a larger perspective:

1. The doubling of the number of unusually severe lung disease deaths with a characteristic X-ray image every three days in the United States up until April 1 (when the doubling time lengthened to less than 6 days as of April 7) is solid evidence that a new and very dangerous infectious disease (called covid-19) is killing people and social distancing is called for. [For details about why this is so go to https://www.pdrboston.org/covid-19 .]

 

It is absurd to say, as some do--with zero evidence!--that social distancing is not necessary and that most people can avoid getting infected by just starting to eat a healthy diet. If the U.S. ruling class had done the right thing we might not have needed social-distancing for the entire population; but it didn't do the right thing, as discussed at http://newdemocracyworld.org/health_care/quarantine.pdf .

 

Now a word about the larger context in which this disease exists:

 

2. In virtually every nation of the world it is the unfortunate fact that an upper class with great wealth and power and privilege rules over the ordinary people by dominating and oppressing them. One way this upper class rules is by making people fear some bogeyman enemy and claiming they must obey the ruling class because it is protecting them from that enemy. Often the bogeyman enemy is another nation or ethnic group, and the ruling class often orchestrates a false flag attack to make it seem as if the bogeyman enemy had done the attack.

 

3. The upper classes of all nations are tacitly allied with each other against the ordinary people of all nations, even when there is a war between nations and/or the upper classes have very different ideologies. Upper classes use wars to strengthen their power over their own populations. I wrote a book about this in regards to World War II ( The People As Enemy: The Leaders' Hidden Agenda in World War II, summarized at http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/War/good-war-myth.htm . The U.S. ruling class armed the Soviet Union all during the Cold War, as I wrote about, and explained the purpose of, at http://newdemocracyworld.org/war/sutton1.html .)

 

4. Ruling classes use EVERYTHING to try to strengthen their power and wealth and domination over ordinary people. They use natural events such as hurricanes (they did this big time with Hurricane Katrina, for example) and throughout history they used threats to health such as plagues; they are certainly using the covid-19 disease for this purpose, whether it is a natural (as I believe) or a false flag event.

 

5. The most important thing responsible for the dramatic decline in mortality from infectious diseases in the last centuries was NOT vaccines and it was NOT antibiotics; it was improved sanitation (such as flush toilets) and improved nutrition. Mortality from these formerly high fatality diseases was extremely low (following big improvements in sanitation and nutrition) by the time vaccines and antibiotics were subsequently introduced. This is not a controversial fact. I was taught it by the Harvard School of Public Health.

A 1980 article in the journal Schweiz Med Wochenschr. titled, "Mortality trends in Switzerland. 2. Infectious diseases 1876-1977," stated:

"An analysis has been made of the evolution in Switzerland of mortality due to the main infectious diseases ever since causes of death began to be registered. Mortality due to tuberculosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, whooping cough, measles, typhoid, puerperal fever and infant gastro-enteritis started to fall long before the introduction of immunization and/or antibiotics. This decline was probably due to a great extent to various factors linked to the steady rise in the standard of living: qualitative and quantitative improvements in nutrition; better public and personal hygiene; better housing and working conditions and improvements in education."

The same article also added:

 

"Immunization has probably been decisive in the eradication of smallpox and poliomyelitis and for the reduction in mortality from tetanus. The introduction of sulfonamides and antibiotics was associated with the beginning of the decline in mortality from non-meningococcal meningitis, otitis and appendicitis and with a more pronounced decline in mortality from pneumonia and acute rheumatic fever. Finally, mortality from syphilis started to decline a few years after the introduction of Salvarsan."

 

A Journal of Population Studies article titled, "Reasons for the decline of mortality in England and Wales during the nineteenth century" found:

"Five diseases or disease groups accounted for almost the whole of the reduction in mortality between 1851–60 and 1891–1900: tuberculosis (all forms), 47.2 per cent; typhus, enteric fever and simple continued fever, 22.9 per cent; scarlet fever, 20.3 per cent; diarrhoea, dysentery and cholera, 8.9 per cent; and smallpox, 6.1 per cent. In order of their relative Importance the Influences responsible for the decline were: (a) a rising standard of living, of which the most significant feature was improved diet (responsible mainly for the decline of tuberculosis, and less certainly, and to a lesser extent, of typhus); (b) the hygienic changes introduced by the sanitary reformers (responsible for the decline of the typhus-typhoid and cholera groups); and (c) a favourable trend In the relationship between infectious agent and human host (which accounted for the decline of mortality from scarlet fever, and may have contributed to that from tuberculosis, typhus and cholera). The effect of therapy was restricted to smallpox and hence had only a trivial effect on the total reduction of the death rate."

A 1977 Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Health and Society journal article titled, "The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century" concludes:

"Conclusions

Without claiming they are definitive findings, and eschewing preten­tions to an analysis as sophisticated as McKeown’s [an author of the article cited above --J.S.] for England and Wales, one can reasonably draw the following conclusions from the analysis presented in this paper: In general, medical measures (both chemotherapeutic and pro­phylactic) appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900—having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances. More specifically, with reference to those five conditions (influenza, pneumonia, diphtheria, whooping cough, and poliomye­litis) for which the decline in mortality appears substantial after the point of intervention—and on the unlikely assumption that all of this decline is attributable to the intervention— it is estimated that at most 3.5 percent o f the total decline in mortality since 1900 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the diseases considered here."

The reason there was improved sanitation and nutrition was because good people fought for it and in particular they made it clear to the public that if the ruling class did not make these improvements it would show that the ruling class was lying big time when it claimed to act in the interest of the welfare of the public. Ruling classes know that if they are perceived as enemies of the public welfare they will lose the minimum amount of credibility they require to remain in power. This is why, for example, even Hitler had to end the euthanasia program in response to extreme public anger at it when the public discovered its existence.

6. What IS controversial, in fact, is the overall benefit of vaccinations. For a detailed book length explanation of this read Dissolving Illusions by Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk. The immune system is extremely complex (on the same order of complexity as the brain), with components of it that are not even known to exist yet (since new ones keep getting discovered). There is not even a known way to tell from laboratory measurements of a person's blood or tissue if a person's immune system is better or worse from some intervention. Using vaccines to fiddle with the immune system in the hope of reducing the harm caused by a germ has been historically fraught with unexpected consequences, sometimes worse than the harm the vaccine is intended to prevent.

One problem, for example, is antibody-dependent enhancement: a vaccine against one germ making it easier for another germ to infect a person. A vaccine against a flu-causing coronavirus may have antigens that increase the ability of the covid-19 coronavirus to infect a person. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA reports:

"Researchers need to understand in particular whether the vaccine causes the same types of immune system malfunctions that have been observed in past vaccine development. Since the 1960s, tests of vaccine candidates for diseases such as dengue, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have shown a paradoxical phenomenon: Some animals or people who received the vaccine and were later exposed to the virus developed more severe disease than those who had not been vaccinated (1). The vaccine-primed immune system, in certain cases, seemed to launch a shoddy response to the natural infection. “That is something we want to avoid,” says Kanta Subbarao, director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza in Melbourne, Australia."

Read about one example of this: the swine flu vaccination in 1976 increased the risk for Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

CNN reports "Dengue vaccine found to worsen disease symptoms."

This problem was reported in PLOS regarding the SARS-CoV vaccine for the earlier flu:

An early concern for application of a SARS-CoV vaccine was the experience with other coronavirus infections which induced enhanced disease and immunopathology in animals when challenged with infectious virus [31], a concern reinforced by the report that animals given an alum adjuvanted SARS vaccine and subsequently challenged with SARS-CoV exhibited an immunopathologic lung reaction reminiscent of that described for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants and in animal models given RSV vaccine and challenged naturally (infants) or artificially (animals) with RSV [32], [33].

Additionally, there is the problem known as "original antigenic sin" that is described here:

"The concept of "original antigenic sin" was first proposed by Thomas Francis, Jr. in 1960. This phenomenon has the potential to rewrite what we understand about how the immune system responds to infections and its mechanistic implications on how vaccines should be designed. Antigenic sin has been demonstrated to occur in several infectious diseases in both animals and humans, including human influenza infection and dengue fever. The basis of "original antigenic sin" requires immunological memory, and our immune system ability to autocorrect. In the context of viral infections, it is expected that if we are exposed to a native strain of a pathogen, we should be able to mount a secondary immune response on subsequent exposure to the same pathogen. "Original antigenic sin" will not contradict this well-established immunological process, as long as the subsequent infectious antigen is identical to the original one. But "original antigenic sin" implies that when the epitope varies slightly, then the immune system relies on memory of the earlier infection, rather than mount another primary or secondary response to the new epitope which would allow faster and stronger responses. The result is that the immunological response may be inadequate against the new strain, because the immune system does not adapt and instead relies on its memory to mount a response. In the case of vaccines, if we only immunize to a single strain or epitope, and if that strain/epitope changes over time, then the immune system is unable to mount an accurate secondary response. In addition, depending of the first viral exposure the secondary immune response can result in an antibody-dependent enhancement of the disease or at the opposite, it could induce anergy. Both of them triggering loss of pathogen control and inducing aberrant clinical consequences." [emphasis added]

Read here, for example, how original antigenic sin relates to influenza virus vaccination:

"Human immunity against influenza viruses is complicated, indeed. Although protective antibodies can be readily produced in response to vaccination or infection, it has long been observed that early exposure to a specific influenza strain can prevent optimal antibody responses against variants of that strain that are encountered later in life. This phenomenon, called “original antigenic sin,” is addressed in a recent paper by Huang and colleagues, who studied how early exposure to an H1 subtype influenza virus may decrease immunity against current H1 viruses in adults born before 1982."

Read here about a study introduced by the authors with the statement, "Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference...This study aimed to investigate virus interference by comparing respiratory virus status among Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status. Furthermore, individual respiratory viruses and their association with influenza vaccination were examined." The study found:

"Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively) ." [NOTE: the "coronavirus" mentioned here is not the SARS-CoV-2 virus that is believed to cause Covid-19 disease.]

Read here about how the oral polio vaccine has caused people to get polio recently in Africa.

Read here the journal article titled, "Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine." Read the discussion section to see how the issue is complex!

The point here is not that vaccines are always more harmful than beneficial. The point is that a particular vaccine may or may not be--overall--more beneficial than harmful. It is not as simple as the mass media claim it is to know that a particular vaccine is more beneficial than harmful with great confidence, and it is virtually impossible to know the answer with certainty. Getting vaccinated means taking a gamble, one that it might make sense to take (I, personally, have--for better or for worse--been vaccinated for most of the various influenzas), but still it is a gamble for all that. People who choose not to be vaccinated do not deserve to be portrayed the way the establishment typically potrays them--as stark raving mad idiots.

It is also important to keep in mind that there is a public health, as opposed to purely personal health, reason for getting vaccinated (assuming the vaccine is not personally harmful): the more people who are immune to a contagious disease, the harder it is for that disease to spread. If one is personally immune to a disease, then one will not spread the disease to somebody else. One may not care if one, personally, gets the disease, but still care very much about wanting to prevent OTHERS from getting it, especially others who may suffer greater harm than oneself because of their age or pre-existing illnesses, etc., or simply because getting the disease earlier rather than later means not having the benefit of better treatments that are discovered as time goes by.

7. Vaccines for different diseases are different, and the only way to know--at least with great confidence though not certainty--what effects (plural!)--a particular vaccine causes is to have a LARGE (many thousands of human subjects enrolled) RANDOMIZED DOUBLE BLIND (neither the subjects nor the physicians administering the vaccine know if it is vaccine or placebo) CLINICAL TRIAL and follow the subjects for a LONG time (MANY years) to compare the vaccine arm and the control arm of the trial not only for infection (yes or no) by the germ in question but also death by any cause and OTHER morbidity (i.e., illness). Such trials have not been, and are not, done. Small trials of short duration have been done, often not very scientifically. This is why we don't know with any high degree of confidence--never mind certainty--what the total effect is of vaccines in use today. We hope a vaccine does more good than harm, so we use it. But it is not unreasonable for people to be skeptical. (Science = skepticism, by the way.)

 

8. The upper classes of the world, for evil reasons (greed, domination and control of people), much prefer (for the purpose of maintaining their image as serving the public welfare) a) to rely on vaccines rather than b) to improve sanitation and nutrition (not to mention end oppression and the class inequality that makes it necessary for the rich to oppress people and treat them like dirt), even though the latter method may very well (if history is any guide: see sections #5 and #9) be far more valuable in preventing deaths from germs than the former. For crying out loud, the people of Flint, MI were denied safe water to drink by the same ruling class that will no doubt be telling them to get vaccinated with some vaccine for covid-19 disease! The Chinese ruling class makes people breathe polluted air that probably makes them much more susceptible to germs, but it too will no doubt tell them to be vaccinated.

 

Yes, Tony Fauci is part of the WORLD WIDE ruling classes establishment, which includes the Chinese Communist Party and the people running WHO and the CDC (US, and China) and Big Pharma, and Bill Gates (read the truth about him here), etc.

Dr. Fauci's job is to make the "vaccine and drugs only" approach to public health be as credible as possible; his job entails never declaring, never mind acting on the fact, that abolishing class inequality (and hence removing from power the ruling plutocracy that he hob-nobs with routinely) is FAR more important (see sections #5 and #9) than using vaccines and drugs to lower mortality and morbidity in the population.

If Dr. Fauci were truly acting in the interest of protecting public health, then he would be shouting to the rafters (even as just a private citizen if Trump fired him) that it is class inequality that is preventing the appropriate social distancing (stay at home policies, etc.) from ending the covid-19 pandemic in the United States as fast as possible. Here's what I mean.

Clearly, as Dr. Fauci and virtually everybody else knows, the pressure on state governments to immediately "end the lockdown" (before it is advisable to do so, and despite the fact that this will lead to more deaths and serious medical harm to "survivors" than otherwise necessary) is largely due to the fact that non-essential workers who have been deprived of their income and who still need to pay the rent or the mortgage and feed their children, etc., have not received sufficient money from the federal government to live without their old work income.

As Dr. Fauci knows, the failure of the government to provide this required money to the non-essential workers is thus the main obstacle to ending the pandemic in the U.S. quickly. But as Dr. Fauci also knows, the ruling plutocracy is loathe to provide this money to the non-essential workers because it would amount to implementing a policy that reflects the egalitarian principle of "From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need," and--as Dr. Fauci also knows--this principle challenges the authority and the very existence of the billionaire plutocracy that rules the country.

And so, in order to remain on good terms with his billionaire buddies, Dr. Fauci is ALSO loathe to advocate that the government needs to provide the non-essential workers the money they need to live reasonably, even though he knows this is what is required to actually end the pandemic in the U.S. as fast as possible. Dr. Fauci's silence on this question, and his decades of silence on the more general fact that class inequality is the main reason people get sick and die from infectious diseases and other causes (see sections #5 and #9), is the reason that he has been elevated by the billionaire ruling plutocracy to be the "nation's highest authority on infectious diseases." It is nothing short of evil for Dr. Fauci, who knows all about infectious diseases, to act as if vaccines and drugs were the only way to respond to infectious diseases, and thereby to help the billionaire ruling plutocracy avoid doing the most important thing to reduce the mortality and morbidity caused by infectious diseases.

 

And yes, these people--from Dr. Fauci to Bill Gates to all the others--lie.

 

I suspect these people even lie about the actual cause of AIDS. (Read why I suspect this on my website at http://newdemocracyworld.org/world_hiv.html .)

But the deaths from covid-19 are real, and the conclusions that stem from those deaths (see #1 above) are valid, despite the fact that the ruling class lies when it serves its interests and tells the truth when THAT serves its interests. We need to think for ourselves to figure out what to believe. Even Genghis Khan said that 2 plus 2 is 4; it would be foolish to disagree just because he also lied a lot, right?

It is important to understand why the U.S. ruling class and its agents such as Dr. Fauci and its politicians are responding to the covid-19 pandemic with policies, such as the stay-at-home policy, recommended by well-intentioned epidemiologists. Our rulers do this because they need to maintain at least a minimum level of credibility in the eyes of the public as promoting the welfare of the general public. All ruling classes must do this. Even Hitler had to do it.

Read here why Hitler stopped his secret evil euthanasia program because of public outrage at it when it was discovered by the public. Hitler knew he had to maintain at least a minimum of credibility (as acting for the welfare of the general public) in the eyes of the public so as to avoid being overthrown by a revolution.

 

If one understands why ruling classes do what they do (fear of the people), then it no longer makes sense to conclude that just because the U.S. rulers and their agents, who are taking action against the pandemic, are evil, that therefore the pandemic is really just a "scamdemic."

Please read "MY FACEBOOK POSTS REBUTTING CORONONSENSE" on this note.

9. It is evil of the ruling classes NOT to improve sanitation and nutrition and NOT to end medically harmful stress [the harm of which is discussed here and here and here and here (it is chronic stress, as caused by one's job or poverty, that impairs immune response) and here and here] caused by their oppression of us while eagerly promoting vaccines INSTEAD, i.e., as a *substitute* for improving public health the obvious and arguably most important ways.

If there were good healthy food available to all Americans instead of there being a food desert crisis (read about it at https://socialwork.tulane.edu/blog/food-deserts-in-america ) and if poor people were not subjected to toxic pollution (read about this in item #15 at https://www.pdrboston.org/why-no-rich-no-poor ) then very likely far fewer people would have impaired immune systems causing them to fail to mount an effective defense against germs such as the covid-19 germ.

The ruling elites act as if public health were their top priority but they behave in ways that show it is a low priority. For example, the ruling elites created plutonium, which didn't previously exist naturally. Plutonium is one of the most toxic substances in the world. (Read more about this here.) The elite rulers make plutonium for nuclear weapons and power plants; they have produced two and half million pounds of it in the last six decades. A single NASA rocket explosion in 1964 vaporized 2.1 pounds of plutonium in the atmosphere, and there are many such rocket explosions.

The CDC says, "Most plutonium in the environment is in the form of microscopic particles that are the remnants of nuclear weapons testing and nuclear reactor accidents. Because it emits alpha particles, plutonium is most dangerous when inhaled. When plutonium particles are inhaled, they lodge in the lung tissue. The alpha particles can kill lung cells, which causes scarring of the lungs, leading to further lung disease and cancer."

Plutonium remains deadly for hundreds of thousands of years and eventually eats through whatever it is stored in; it cannot thus be truly stored safely for future generations. Rocket and nuclear power plant accidents contaminate our environment with plutonium. How does the NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) solve this problem? Here's how, as recounted by Charles Perrow in his book, Normal Accidents: Living With High Risk Technologies-Updated Edition (pg. 70):

"Some influential scientists and academics, at the workshop that tried to formulate safety goals for the NRC, argued that the present generation is more important than future ones--for we need nuclear power to prevent economic and political crises--and who knows, there may be a technological fix that would mitigate the burden for the future generations of an accident in the present one."

If you're curious how the nuclear energy industry puts its spin on the fact (not disputed!) that there is no known solution to safely storing its hazardous radioactive waste, read this pro-nuclear-power article in Chemical & Engineeering News.

The ruling elites are quietly killing us (our future generations in particular) with one hand, while very publicly offering us vaccines against germs with the other.

10. Regarding Vitamin C as a treatment for Covid-19, we should know the results of a proper randomized and blinded clinical trial (with 140 covid-19 subjects randomized to vitamin C and standard of care or standard of care alone) of this treatment by around September 30, 2020. [Update: the trial had to be stopped early due to insufficient numbers of patients sick with Covid-19 in China, which prevented the trial from achieving its required sample size to answer the question it aimed to answer.]

Regarding other treatments for Covid-19 (and other illnesses), while it is true that Big Pharma plays a bad role in skewing the agenda of medical research towards studies that might promote their profitable drugs (I experienced this in my career), it is nonetheless true that most doctors in medical research genuinely want to find good treatments. This is why, for example, there have been clinical trials of acupuncture therapies--therapies that are non-Western and traditional and that do not require drugs from which Big Pharma could make a profit--that are reported in the establishment medical journals and some of these trials did indeed find that acupuncture was effective.

For the same reason that the ruling class was forced to make improvements in sanitation and nutrition for the general public (see #5 above), it is also forced to let the truth about medical knowledge and scientific research be published sometimes. It is thus foolish and potentially dangerous to assume that medical journals are not worth relying on and that one should instead believe and act on the basis of statements made without validly analyzed rigorous scientific experimental (or at least observational) data to back them up. Just because some movie star or other celebrity says X causes covid-19 or Y is a cure for it does not make it so!

Furthermore, just because X does something good in a test tube does not mean that it will do something good in a human being. Lots of drugs are shown to do something wonderful in a test tube but then, when given to human beings in a randomized clinical trial, they fail to provide statistically significant medical benefit. When somebody touts X on the basis of laboratory experiments but cannot point to a randomized clinical trial of X in humans that demonstrates its benefit, there is a very good chance that X doesn't work in humans. Medical researchers know this, but scam artists selling the modern version of snake oil take advantage of the fact that most people don't.

11. Despite the unfortunate reality of #9 above, it MAY nonetheless be that a vaccine against Covid-19 is more beneficial than harmful. Or not. We may never know for sure, and certainly not for many years. The ruling class may very well, of course, pretend to know with certainty that its vaccine is far more beneficial than harmful.

As noted above, getting vaccinated is a gamble. For any specific vaccine it may turn out to be beneficial--or not. People older than 70 may remember what happened when the first polio vaccine was administered to a population extremely frighted of that disease:

"In April 1955 more than 200 000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10." [Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine]

12. To solve the Big Problem (that we live in an oppressive dictatorship of small ruling upper classes) we need to build a world wide egalitarian revolutionary movement, as discussed at https://www.pdrboston.org/what-is-an-egalitarian-revolution . Only in a genuine democracy will science be used to TRULY serve the public welfare. Until then good scientists will be, more often than not, prevented from doing good science for that goal; the chief souece of medical research funding (Big Pharma and the federal government in the USA) will oblige them to serve the goal of making the ruling classes more wealthy and powerful. [For an example of this go to https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/ .]

Class inequality makes science for the people impossible. In a society like ours based on class inequality, everybody knows that Big Money calls the shots in every area of life, including science. Everybody knows that scientists and doctors are influenced by Big Money. We hear about how medical journals print articles that purport to be independent of any pharmaceutical company but that are actually secretly written by "ghost-authors of papers written by drug companies or their agents" to get doctors to prescribe a drug that they wouldn't prescribe if they knew the truth about how bad or unproven it really was. The poisoning of the drinking water in Flint, MI, required this corruption of science. 

Many people are therefore, quite understandably, extremely skeptical about anything scientists tell them. Even when what the scientists say is true, many don't believe it. Does HIV cause AIDS? Does smoking cause lung cancer? Is fracking safe for our environment? Are people causing catastrophic global warming? Anybody who knows how much Big Money controls scientific research cannot help but be skeptical of all such claims. 

When there is so much distrust of scientists, people will not do the things that scientists say would be good for them to do. Under these circumstances, science cannot serve the people, as most scientists want it to. Only in an egalitarian society will scientists be able to avoid ever doing the bidding of the very rich at the expense of others and gain the trust of the public so that their scientific knowledge can truly serve the people.

This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now