MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

case report

1 2 3 16

Yesterday, it was reported that one of Austria’s best-known opponents of vaccination has died as a result of coronavirus infection. He vehemently refused treatment in hospital. Instead, he insisted on treating himself – and tragically, he is not an isolated case.

Miracle Mineral Solution” (MMS) is being promoted as a treatment for all kinds of diseases – including, of course, the coronavirus. But MMS is nothing more than the bleach and disinfectant chlorine dioxide, or CDL for short. It made headlines when Donald Trump suggested it as a remedy against Covid-19. Subsequently, CDL became highly popular amongst the anti-vax brigade.

Johann Biacsics was one of the leading figures of the anti-vaccination scene in Austria. On 11 November, he was seen in a Vienna hospital with an acute corona infection. At this stage, he had already taken chlorine dioxide because of fever complaints. Biacsics was, of course, not vaccinated and refused treatment. He was firmly convinced that he had already overcome the infection thanks to his treatment with chlorine dioxide.

The senior physician at the Vienna hospital saw things differently. His condition was “life-threatening”, she said. But instead of accepting treatment in hospital, Biacsics discharged himself and said he would rather treat himself. Once home, Biacsics put in an IV line with chlorine dioxide and sodium chloride. Two days later he was dead.

Only two weeks before his death, Biacsics had demonstrated in Vienna against the Austrian Corona measures. In a television interview from September, he can be seen in front of the parliament. “There are mainly vaccinated people in the intensive care units. 67 percent of them are vaccinated,” he said on camera at the time. When the reporter corrected him, he only replied that he had “inside information”.

His followers are now suggesting that he was poisoned. And for once they are, of course, correct. He basically poisoned himself with MMS. His family, meanwhile, blames the hospital and claim that he did not die of COVID, nor that Biacsics’ death is the result of treatment with chlorine dioxide.

Biacsics is not the first Austrian Covid patient who has refused treatment or used “alternative remedies”. And he is not the first who has died as a result. Self-treatment is booming among vaccination opponents and Corona deniers. It was even propagated in the Austrian parliament. For weeks, FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl (who also is COVID-positive) and his party colleagues have been promoting the deworming drug ivermectin – despite warnings from doctors, scientists, and the manufacturer.

All too often, the consequences are fatal: In Styria, two patients died from poisoning with ivermectin, in the district of Rohrbach in Upper Austria, a Corona patient left the intensive care unit in critical condition and died. He had also relied on ivermectin and refused other treatments.

 

I have said it often before, and I will say it again:

Homeopathy and other ineffective so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) are dangerous mostly because they might replace effective treatments.

The tragic death of an Austrian boy is a stark reminder of this fact. Even though this happened a decade ago, I only just came across this case. It was, to the best of my knowledge, never published in English. Allow me, therefore, to summarize it here:

In 2011, a judge sentenced a couple from East Tyrol to a one-year suspended sentence. Their son, who suffered from a rare congenital immune system disorder (SCID*), had been treated only with homeopathy until he died. The doctor who treated the boy in this way received the same sentence.** The verdicts took into account that the parents and the family doctor did not act out of sheer ignorance, but had been informed about the nature of the disease and its consequences.

The parents told the court that they had previously had extremely negative experiences with conventional medicine when their first two children, who suffered from the same condition, had died. When their third child fell ill, the parents took him to a clinic where a bone marrow transplant was to be carried out, which, according to an expert witness, would have had a 95 % chance of curing the boy. Because the parents were put off by the sight of other children in the hospital, they took their son home again and withheld all further conventional treatments or appropriate examinations. Instead, they instructed their family doctor to cure the boy with homeopathy. The doctor refrained from administering antibiotics when the illness worsened due to an infection and failed to admit the boy to a hospital when he became severely ill.

The child then died of sepsis. The autopsy revealed that he was malnourished and one of his ear canals as well as his lungs were necrotic with inflammation.

______________________

It is hard not to be repulsed and nauseated by such stories. They show how dangerously unreasonable some homeopaths and their followers are. And they remind us that even a seemingly harmless SCAM will cost lives in the hands of such fanatics.

 

* Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) is a group of rare disorders caused by mutations in different genes involved in the development and function of infection-fighting immune cells. Infants with SCID appear healthy at birth but are highly susceptible to severe infections. The condition is fatal, usually within the first year or two of life, unless infants receive immune-restoring treatments, such as transplants of blood-forming stem cells, gene therapy, or enzyme therapy.

**Personally, I find the sentence for the doctor far too lenient. One could argue that the parents had been punished by the loss of their child and thus deserve merci, but the doctor?

Remember the 10:23 Campaign? It was an awareness and protest campaign against homoeopathy organised by the Merseyside Skeptics Society, a non-profit organisation, to oppose the sale of homoeopathic products in the UK. It consisted of volunteers publicly taking overdoses of homeopathic remedies. With their actions, they wanted to demonstrate that homeopathic remedies are devoid of active ingredients and physiological effects. Suicide by homeopathy, they showed us, was impossible.

But they were mistaken – it is possible after all!

A few days ago, it was reported that an Italian doctor has died of a COVID-19 infection. This is tragic, no doubt, but in itself, it is not all that newsworthy in the context of this blog. What makes it remarkable is the fact that the doctor was a convinced homeopath who had refused to get vaccinated and was adamant that homeopathy would protect him.

Domenico Giannola, a doctor homeopath from Cinisi, died of complications due to Covid-19 at Palermo’s Cervello hospital. Dr. Giannola had not been vaccinated and after he got infected with COVID-19, he had tried to treat himself with homeopathic remedies.

Domenico Giannola was a well-known advocate of anthroposophical and homeopathic medicine. In a Youtube video from last year, he described his ‘methods of treatment. As he had a preexisting heart condition, he was a high-risk patient.

After he fell ill, he had been in home isolation for several days and was followed by the special continuity care unit (Usca) of the Palermo hospital. He had always insisted that he had no intention of becoming infected and would treat himself at home with lactoferrin and homeopathic remedies. Lactoferrin is one of the components of the immune system of the body; it has antimicrobial activity against bacteria and fungi.

As his condition worsened, Domenico Giannola was eventually transported to the emergency room of the Cervello hospital in Palermo by a 118 ambulance. He died an hour after his arrival at the hospital.

_________________________

I find such reports tragic beyond words. At the same time, they are deeply worrying. A question that one needs to ask is this: if some homeopaths do this to themselves, what are they capable of inflicting on their patients?

 

If you are not American, you will ask: Who the Dickens is Aaron Rodgers? I too had to look it up. He is an American football star. And it seems that US football fans are worried about him and his rather brainless idea of homeopathic vaccination.

Yesterday it was confirmed that the ‘Green Bay Packers’ quarterback, Aaron Rodgers, had tested positive for Covid and will thus have to miss at least 10 days of crucial games. Only the unvaccinated players are forced to miss a mandatory 10 games following a positive test — while vaccinated players can return at any point, as long as they provide two negative tests 24 hours apart and are not experiencing symptoms.

Everyone had assumed that Rodgers was vaccinated – after all, he had confirmed it when asked about his vaccination status by a reporter prior to the start of the season. Presumably, he thought so himself when he affirmed, with a straight face, that he was immunized.

But now it has been revealed that Aaron Rodgers was given a homeopathic vaccination for COVID from his personal doctor. When the NFL reviewed his treatment, they did not deem it suitable to appropriately label him as “vaccinated.”

Per NFL.com:

Rodgers received homeopathic treatment from his personal doctor to raise his antibody levels and asked the NFL to review his status. The league pointed Rodgers to the NFL-NFLPA protocols, which do not account for such an exemption for players. So, Rodgers remained subject to a variety of restrictions, including daily testing, mask-wearing and high-risk close contact protocol that would force him to isolate for five days based on interaction with a positive individual, even if he tested negative.

Now, as an unvaccinated player, Aaron Rodgers will have to sit out the next 10 days, at least. That means he won’t play for the Packers this Sunday against the Kansas City Chiefs. The soonest he can return to the team is Saturday, November 13, one day before the Packers’ week 10 matchup with the Seattle Seahawks.

I don’t suppose that Aaron Rodgers is an avid reader of my blog. Pity! Because, if he had followed our discussions, he would have known what to think of homeopathy in general and of homeopathic vaccination in particular:

Some people seem to insist on finding out the hard way about homeopathy. Personally, I hope Aaron Rodgers recovers fully from both his COVID infection and his homeopathic fantasies. Oh, I almost forgot: I also want to thank him for his sacrifice; it hopefully leads to a better understanding in the US of the fact that homeopathy is a placebo treatment.

PS

This is what the man himself had to say:

Image

As we have discussed ad nauseam on this blog, spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) can cause serious adverse events, including spinal epidural hematoma (SEH), an emergency that can cause severe neurological dysfunction. Chinese surgeons have reported three cases of SEH after SMT.

  • The first case was a 30-year-old woman who experienced neck pain and numbness in both upper limbs immediately after SMT. Her symptoms persisted after 3 d of conservative treatment, and she was admitted to our hospital. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated an SEH, extending from C6 to C7.
  • The second case was a 55-year-old man with sudden back pain 1 d after SMT, numbness in both lower limbs, an inability to stand or walk, and difficulty urinating. MRI revealed an SEH, extending from T1 to T3.
  • The third case was a 28-year-old man who suddenly developed symptoms of numbness in both lower limbs 4 h after SMT. He was unable to stand or walk and experienced mild back pain. MRI revealed an SEH, extending from T1 to T2.

All three patients underwent surgery after failed conservative treatment. Blood clots were found during the operation in case 1 and case 2, and the postoperative pathology confirmed a hematoma. In case three, a vein ruptured during the operation, causing massive bleeding. The three patients recovered to ASIA grade E on day 5, 1 wk, and day 10 after surgery, respectively. All patients returned to normal after 3 mo of follow-up.

Imaging examinations of case 1. A: T1-weighted preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image shows high signal intensity (orange arrow); B and C: Preoperative T2-weighted image shows low signal intensity, and an axial T2-weighted image demonstrates that the hematoma occurred in the posterior region (white arrow); D: Preoperative enhanced MRI suggests an enhanced hematoma signal (orange arrow); E: Intraoperative photograph shows that spinal cord compression has recovered; F: Postoperative pathology suggested a hematoma; G and H: X-ray at the 3-mo follow-up indicated intact internal fixation.

The authors concluded that before proceeding with SMT, each patient should be evaluated in detail and checked for risk factors. In cases where the physical condition changes rapidly, physicians should be alert to the danger and send the patient to the emergency department for a complete MRI examination. We recommend surgery if neurological symptoms appear.

In their paper, the authors also review 15 further cases of SEH that have been previously published. They stress several times in their article that this complication is rare. In my view, this begs the question: how do they know? As there is no post-marketing surveillance of chiropractors or other clinicians doing SMT, I would insist that nobody can be sure about the true incidence of SEH or any other complication after SMT.

Recently, I wrote about the court case of a French naturopath. Last week, the judge has issued his verdict. Miguel Barthéléry was sentenced to a two-year suspended prison term and to a fine of 5 000 Euros. Two cancer patients had died following his treatments and recommendations. Barthéléry was also found guilty of impersonating a doctor and illegally practising medicine. In addition, he was also banned for life from practising as a healthcare professional.

The Paris criminal court found that Miguel Barthéléry had deliberately created confusion about his qualifications by presenting himself as a doctor on the internet and in text messages to the two victims. The defendant had claimed to have a doctorate and a post-doctorate from the United States. The judgment “has the consequence of dissuading all those who engage in the same abuses, they are now warned that we can not do anything with the health of people,” said the judge.

The case had begun in February 2019 with the complaint of the companion of a man who had died two months earlier of testicular cancer. Diagnosed in 2016, the patient had not consulted a doctor but had preferred to follow a “health plan” drawn up by the naturopath. It was based on fasting and cures, raw food, and essential oils. Later, the family of a Belgian physiotherapist, who died of uterine cancer at the age of 39, joined the legal case. However, according to Code Source, the Parisien podcast, the case is more extensive, with seven further suspicious deaths of Barthéléry’s patients.

Barthéléry’s lawyer said that the decision “raises questions more generally about the appreciation that we now have of alternative therapeutic practices, which now seem, although not prohibited by law, to be subject to condemnation by the courts.”

 

I was asked by the ‘Science Media Centre’ (SMC) to provide a short comment on the following press release (which was embargoed until today):

Daily use of cannabidiol (‘CBD’) oil may be linked to lung cancer regression 

… The report authors describe the case of a woman in her 80s, diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer. She also had mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), osteoarthritis, and high blood pressure, for which she was taking various drugs.

She was a smoker, getting through around a pack plus of cigarettes every week (68 packs/year).

Her tumour was 41 mm in size at diagnosis, with no evidence of local or further spread, so was suitable for conventional treatment of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. But the woman refused treatment, so was placed under ‘watch and wait’ monitoring, which included regular CT scans every 3-6 months.

These showed that the tumour was progressively shrinking, reducing in size from 41 mm in June 2018 to 10 mm by February 2021, equal to an overall 76% reduction in maximum diameter, averaging 2.4% a month, say the report authors.

When contacted in 2019 to discuss her progress, the woman revealed that she had been taking CBD oil as an alternative self-treatment for her lung cancer since August 2018, shortly after her original diagnosis.

She had done so on the advice of a relative, after witnessing her husband struggle with the side effects of radiotherapy. She said she consistently took 0.5 ml of the oil, usually three times a day, but sometimes twice.

The supplier had advised that the main active ingredients were Δ9-­tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at 19.5%, cannabidiol at around 20%, and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) at around 24%.

The supplier also advised that hot food or drinks should be avoided when taking the oil as she might otherwise feel stoned. The woman said she had reduced appetite since taking the oil but had no other obvious ‘side effects’. There were no other changes to her prescribed meds, diet, or lifestyle. And she continued to smoke throughout.

This is just one case report, with only one other similar case reported, caution the authors. And it’s not clear which of the CBD oil ingredients might have been helpful.

“We are unable to confirm the full ingredients of the CBD oil that the patient was taking or to provide information on which of the ingredient(s) may be contributing to the observed tumour regression,” they point out.

And they emphasise: “Although there appears to be a relationship between the intake of CBD oil and the observed tumour regression, we are unable to conclusively confirm that the tumour regression is due to the patient taking CBD oil.”

Cannabis has a long ‘medicinal’ history in modern medicine, having been first introduced in 1842 for its analgesic, sedative, anti-inflammatory, antispasmodic and anticonvulsant effects. And it is widely believed that cannabinoids can help people with chronic pain, anxiety and sleep disorders; cannabinoids are also used in palliative care, the authors add.

“More research is needed to identify the actual mechanism of action, administration pathways, safe dosages, its effects on different types of cancer and any potential adverse side effects when using cannabinoids,” they conclude.

The SMC published three invited comments:

Prof David Nutt, The Edmond J Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said: 

“This is one of many such promising single case reports of medical cannabis self-treatment for various cancers.  Such case reports are biologically credible given the adaptogenic nature of the endocannabinoid system.  A case report itself is not sufficient to give any form of proof that one thing caused the other – we need trials for that.  There are some controlled trials already started and more are required to properly explore the potential of medical cannabis in a range of cancers.”

Prof Edzard Ernst, Emeritus Professor of Complementary Medicine, University of Exeter, said: 

“Cannabinoids have been shown to reduce the size of prostate cancer tumours in animal models.  Previous case reports have yielded encouraging findings also in human cancers.  However, case reports cannot be considered to be reliable evidence, and there are currently no data from rigorous clinical trials to suggest that cannabis products will alter the natural history of any cancer.” 

Dr Tom Freeman, Senior Lecturer and Director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group, University of Bath, said: 

“These results are exciting and very encouraging for this patient.  However as a single case study the quality of scientific evidence is low and should not be used to change clinical practice.  People with lung cancer should always seek guidance from a healthcare professional when deciding on an appropriate treatment. 

“The product used by this patient reportedly contained high levels of THC (the intoxicating component of cannabis), and was sourced from outside the UK.  This type of product is very different to most CBD oils which predominantly contain CBD.  Unlike prescribed medicines, CBD wellness products lack assurance of quality, safety or efficacy and should not be used for medicinal purposes.”

The original paper has now been published and can be found here.

I came across a little article by the homeopathy firm Boiron. Normally, I would not mention such promotional literature, but this one is special. Here it is:

These days, leaving home is an exercise in mental fortitude with trying to remember your mask, packing enough hand sanitizer, and taking a host of other precautions. Our daily routines have been upended, leaving us on high alert. As each day brings a new set of challenges — like hybrid learning or work closures — it’s easy for our confidence and self-esteem to take a hit.

If these feelings begin to hold you back, health professionals like Heidi Weinhold, ND, recommend turning to Gelsemium sempervirens. “I think of this remedy whenever I need help facing my fears,” she says.

Dr. Weinhold recommends Gelsemium sempervirens 30C for anyone experiencing nervousness from anticipatory or situational stress. “For college students, that could mean test anxiety before an exam. Some of us are having fears of getting back on a plane or flying, or even going to the grocery store and shopping.”

Gelsemium has a long history as a stress reducer. According to Dr. Weinhold, this remedy was found in Civil War first aid kits where it was used to help give soldiers courage before walking on to the battlefield. Now Gelsemium, too, can help you face your battles and provide you with the strength to persevere through tough times, she says.

Click here to watch this video featuring Dr. Weinhold explaining the uses and benefits of Gelsemium sempervirens.

The short article begs, of course, many questions. What, for instance, is Gelsemium sempervirens? It is a plant sometimes used as a folk remedy for various medical conditions. It looks a bit like honeysuckle but is quite toxic due to the alkaloids that it contains.

Is there any evidence that Gelsemium sempervirens is effective for any condition? No! But that does not matter in the context of homeopathy because a C30 potency would not contain a single molecule of the plant anyway.

And who is Dr. Heidi Weinhold? According to her own website, she

received her Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from Washington & Jefferson College. Dr. Weinhold completed a four-year doctoral program in Naturopathic Medicine from Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine in Tempe, Arizona. Her studies included drug-herb interactions, homeopathic intakes, dialoguing with physicians, and incorporating natural modalities to enhance conventional treatment. Dr. Weinhold spent 9 months doing supervised clinical rotations through Arizona Pathways, a drug Rehabilitation Community Center, where she provided Naturopathic support to individuals recovering from addiction. In 2013 she received the Alumni Award from Southwest College in recognition of her contribution towards the advancement of Naturopathic Medicine. In 2017, Southwest College further honored Dr. Weinhold by bestowing upon her an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters.

From 2008-2016, Dr. Weinhold served as the legislative chair for the Pennsylvania Association of Naturopathic Physicians (PANP), working with legislators to promote legislation to license Naturopathic Doctors in Pennsylvania. A giant step towards this effort was achieved with the passage of House Bill 516 in 2016. HB 516 provides title protection and registration for Naturopathic Physicians graduating from accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges. Full licensure efforts are currently underway. Dr. Weinhold received the 2017 Physician of the Year Award from the Pennsylvania Association of Naturopathic Physicians.

Fascinating! I am particularly interested in her studies of drug-herb interactions, homeopathic intakes, dialoguing with physicians, and incorporating natural modalities to enhance conventional treatment. So I looked her up on Medline: nothing! Heidi has not a single publication in her name.

Now, that’s surprising. It could mean that her studies were too important to be published and the findings are still top secret. Dr. Weinhold has received a prestigious award for advancing naturopathic medicine; it, therefore, stands to reason that we can very soon expect the announcement of a major breakthrough regarding the medicinal powers of homeopathic Gelsemium sempervirens preparations that are devoid of any molecules of Gelsemium sempervirens.

I for one am looking forward to it.

Yesterday, I received this strange comment:

“One day he will have his come uppance…”

Was this a threat?

Someone wishing me personal harm?

According to the dictionary, a comeuppance is:

a person’s bad luck that is considered to be a fair and deserved punishment for something bad that they have done.

So, what bad deed did I commit to deserve punishment?

I posted my criticism of a paper that I consider highly unethical and irresponsible. But is it really punishable to stand up for medical ethics? Surely not … except, of course, in the eyes of a fanatic advocate of homeopathy.

And what punishment do I deserve in the eyes of fanatic advocates of homeopathy? The post was about patients who suffered from COVID-19 infections and who recovered quickly after receiving some unnamed homeopathic remedies. Does the author of

“One day he will have his come uppance…”

want me punished by falling ill with COVID, reject the life-saving homeopathy, and thus not recover from the infection?

Is that possible?

Surely not!

Sadly, it is not just possible but not even unique. A German pharmacist who dared to criticize homeopathy was recently told this (my translation):

I wish you an incurable disease, despair and a good homeopath who will give you quality of life again. Then we’ll talk again. Or a conventional doctor who sends you to a hospice.

And in the past, I have been the recipient of many threats, including overt death threats.

Sometimes I really do wonder why people think that so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is gentle, soft, and harmless.

This shocking paper presents 5 cases of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 infections, 2 of them hospitalized in the intensive care unit, who were successfully treated with homeopathy. All 5 patients responded to homeopathic treatment in an unexpectedly short time span (in fact, it took up to 8 days), improving both physically and mentally.

The authors concluded that the present case series emphasizes the rapidity of response among moderate to severely ill patients to homeopathic treatment, when conventional medical options have been unable to relieve or shorten the disease. The observations described should encourage use of homeopathy in treating patients with COVID-19 during the acute phase of the disease.

If I hear about patients suffering from a cold, or tennis elbow, or otitis, or back pain, or allergy who responded to homeopathic treatment in an unexpectedly short time span, I tend to giggle and usually consider it a waste of time to explain that the observed outcome most likely is not a RESPONSE to homeopathic treatment but a non-causally related by-product. Correlation is not causation! What caused the outcome was, in fact, the natural history of the condition which would have improved even without homeopathy. To make this even clearer, I sometimes ask the homeopath: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE PATIENT WOULD NOT HAVE IMPROVED EVEN FASTER IF YOU HAD NOT GIVEN HIM THE HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY? This question sometimes (sadly not always) leads to the realization that homeopathy may not have caused the outcome.

But when, in the middle of a pandemic during which millions of people died and continue to die, someone writes in a medical journal that 5 COVID patients responded to homeopathic treatment in an unexpectedly short time span, I feel compelled to disclose the statement as pure, unethical, irresponsible, and dangerous quackery.

The 5 patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized at a tertiary medical center in Jerusalem for moderate to severe
COVID-19-related symptoms. Each of them requested homeopathic treatment in addition to conventional therapy from the hospital’s ‘Center for Integrative Complementary Medicine’. All 5 patients were over 18 years old and had confirmed COVID-19 infection at the time of admission. They received their homeopathic medications as small round pills (globules); no further information about the homeopathic treatment was provided. Similarly, we also do not learn whether some patients who did not receive homeopathy recovered just as quickly (I am sure that worldwide thousands did), or whether some patients who did get homeopathic remedies failed to recover.

To make matters worse, the authors of this paper state this:

Several conclusions are evident from the cases presented:
1 homeopathy’s effect may be expected within minutes or, at most, hours;
2 contrary to classical homeopathic consultations, which may extend over an hour, correct medications for patients with acute COVID-19 symptoms may be determined in minutes;
3 there were no observable adverse effects to homeopathic treatment of COVID-19;
4 therapy can be administered via telehealth services, increasing safety of treating patients with active infection;
5 patient satisfaction was high; scoring their experience of homeopathic therapy on a 7-point scale, ranging
from “It greatly improved my condition” to “It greatly aggravated my condition,” all 5 patients indicated it
had greatly improved their condition.

The possibility that the outcomes are not causally related to the homeopathic treatment seems to have escaped the authors. The harm that can be done by such an article seems obvious: fans of homeopathy might be misled into assuming that homeopathy is an effective therapy for COVID infections and other serious conditions. It is not hard to imagine that this error would cost many lives.

The authors state in their article that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first time that a tertiary medical center has permitted homeopathic therapy of patients under treatment for COVID-19-related illness.

I sincerely hope that it is also the last time!

1 2 3 16
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories