MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Covid crisis’

How to Solve the COVID Crisis – International Man

Posted by M. C. on October 31, 2021

First and foremost, we must hear from all sides in any scientific dispute. In “On Liberty,” John Stuart Mill went even further in this direction: not only must we hear from them all, but we must also be intimately familiar with their arguments. We must be able to articulate them as if they were our own. The last thing we would want to do is to shut them down.

https://internationalman.com/articles/how-to-solve-the-covid-crisis/

by Walter Block

How are we human beings going to be able to kick the butts of COVID creatures infinitesimally smaller than we are? Or are we going to be like Goliath, who fell to the Lilliputian David?

It all depends upon whether we embrace science or continue to denigrate it.

The powers that be are continually and boringly claiming to be the one side that embraces this discipline, while the other denounces it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What, then, are the relevant characteristics of the scientific method?

First and foremost, we must hear from all sides in any scientific dispute. In “On Liberty,” John Stuart Mill went even further in this direction: not only must we hear from them all, but we must also be intimately familiar with their arguments. We must be able to articulate them as if they were our own. The last thing we would want to do is to shut them down.

How do present practices comport with the absolute requirements of science? Not too well—scratch that—horribly. Doctors who disagree with the emerging consensus have been threatened with the loss of their medical licenses.

For example, “The Federation of State Medical Boards warned… that physicians and other healthcare professionals could be at risk of losing their medical licenses if they spread COVID vaccine misinformation on social media, online and in the media.” Misinformation? In this case, that is the considered opinion of licensed and duly qualified physicians! In some cases, doctors have not been disbarred but “merely” threatened with such sanctions. Nor are doctors the only ones to be so treated. Medical researchers cannot lose a physicians’ license, but they can be fired for spreading “misinformation,” that is, taking a non-consensus position on this matter. People in the field with alternative viewpoints are also viciously pummeled by major media for spreading what they claim is false information about COVID.

Thanks to Salk-Sabin, the dreadful polio disease is a thing of the past. Were any researchers who disagreed with Salk-Sabin’s methods treated in any such manner? To ask this is to answer it: of course not. We have not yet solved AIDS, merely wrested it to the ground. It is now, thanks to science, a chronic, treatable disease, not a death sentence. No diverging views on this, and indeed any other successful medical breakthrough, were dealt with in the manner accorded diverging opinion holders on COVID.

Second, although this cannot be found in official descriptions of science, reading in between its lines, we discern the requirement that we should do our best. We should not choose scientists on the basis of irrelevant criteria such as gender or color. If a person’s skin is pink with blue polka dots, it should not matter one whit. The scientist could be a giant or a pygmy, a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or atheist; good science regards irrelevancies such as these as, well, irrelevancies.

How does our fight against COVID stack up against this criterion? Again, not too well at all. Instead, we are treated to the usual litany of how important it is that the occupants of our laboratories “look like America.” There is now even a plan afoot to impose “affirmative action” on laboratory technicians and researchers. For example, this is the policy of the National Institute for Health in awarding investigation grants. Do we or do we not want to prevent COVID from spreading further and cure those already afflicted? If so, we have to send our first string into the fray, not the bench warmers. We didn’t put a man on the moon or accomplish any other such task with the second team, and we will not do so in this case either.

Then there is the sheer hypocrisy that must stick in the craw of the anti-vaxxers. Nancy Pelosi’s visit to the beauty parlor sans mask is only the veritable tip of this iceberg.

Let us stipulate, arguendo, that everything Dr. Fauci says about COVID is true, from God’s mouth to his ear and then on to the rest of us lesser beings. We pass over the annoying fact that he keeps changing his mind on these issues but not the vociferousness and assuredness with which he speaks about them. From his own point of view, it is imbecilic to sanction opposing viewpoints, to rely upon lesser qualified scientists, and for the folks in charge to continually engage in hypocrisy. When and if he and this ilk learn this lesson, we will have a much better chance of solving the COVID threat.

Editor’s Note: The 2020s will likely to be an increasingly volatile time. More governments are putting their money printing on overdrive. Negative interests are becoming the rule instead of the exception to it.

One thing is for sure, there will be a great deal of change taking place in the years ahead.

That’s precisely why legendary speculator Doug Casey and his team released an urgent new report titled Doug Casey’s Top 7 Predictions for the Raging 2020s.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

How the Covid Crisis Exposed the Absurdity of “Certificates of Need” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on January 28, 2021

The authors of the study summarize their key findings as follows (I have taken three of the five key findings for brevity’s sake):

  1. Closely reviewing the nation’s 39 CON jurisdictions reveals an incoherent doctrine. There is no rhyme or reason to what services require a CON. This strongly suggests that CONs are driven less by the government’s perception of what will improve patient health and more by lobbying efforts of powerful insider groups within each state.
  2. CONs are not limited to facilities with large capital investments as originally imagined. CONs were first envisioned as a tool to prevent two hospitals from opening around the block from each other. Unfortunately, today, CONs are required for hundreds of minute, inexpensive and often mundane activities. Today, CONs in some states are required for such things as adding or removing a single hospital bed; converting an existing hospital bed to a different use (e.g., psychiatric bed to intensive care unit bed); adding ventilator services to a facility, performing a small or necessary renovation.
  3. CONs that apply solely to new technology undercut the justification that government must prevent duplication of services. If a state maintains a CON for “equipment utilizing technology not previously used in the state.”, it cannot be argued, that CON laws decrease costly duplication of services because, when there is no duplication of service.

https://mises.org/wire/how-covid-crisis-exposed-absurdity-certificates-need

Georg Grassmueck

In August 2020, the Institute for Justice published a report entitled “Conning the Competition: A Nationwide Survey of Certificate of Need Laws.” Certificate of Need (CON) laws are a particular problem in a health crisis like we are experiencing now. However, the problem with CON laws is nothing new to readers of the Mises Institute. In 2017, Alice Salles wrote about how the government ruined US healthcare, pointing to the requirement of a certificate of need as one reason for rising healthcare costs. In the Accad and Koka Report by the Mises Institute two doctors shared their firsthand experience with CON laws. The current covid pandemic exposes some of the absurdities of CON laws in a time when politicians tout their concern for ordinary citizens. While eliminating CON laws will not solve the current pandemic, eliminating them will be a first step in reforming healthcare. The facts in this article are from the Institute of Justice report. 

In a rare admission of policy failure, Congress in 1986 repealed a federal act, eliminating federal incentives for states to maintain CON programs. CONs are government permission slips that are required to enter certain industries, in this case, anything healthcare related. Basic economic theory predicts that supply is inversely correlated with cost: as you increase supply, prices should fall and vice versa. CON laws are an attempt to contradict this basic economic principle with the idea that if you restrict supply, in this case healthcare facilities and services, cost can be controlled. The mistaken belief, at this point, was that reducing supply of healthcare would reduce overall healthcare expenditures. The main idea was to eliminate costly duplication of services and increase access to quality care. The argument of wanting to eliminate costly duplication is one that is heard often when government wants to consolidate its power. However, the experiment with CON laws failed, and Congress, to its credit, repealed a law requiring states to enact CON laws. But the damage was done; before the repeal of the requirement every state except Louisiana had CON laws. Since then, states have very slowly dismantled CON laws, with Hew Hampshire being the latest (2016). Currently, thirty-five states and the District of Columbia maintain CON laws, with another three states enforcing quasi-CON requirements. In contrast, diverse states in geography, political views, and socioeconomic characteristics like California, Colorado, Texas, and Pennsylvania have done away with CON laws. Currently, nearly 40 percent of the nation’s population lives in states without CON laws with any serious negative consequences. I think this provides proof that patients and the general public will not be harmed by eliminating CON laws.

Policymakers claim CON regulation is intended to ensure adequate healthcare resources and access for rural communities plus promote high-quality healthcare. At this point, I am ignoring the absurd claim that CON will restrain the cost of healthcare services. One of the most absurd parts of CON laws is the ability of competitors to object to an application. In thirty-four of thirty-nine states with a CON program, a would-be competitor can object to the CON application. Not only is a healthcare provider required to ask the government for permission to provide a new service, expand service, change hours or location, etc., but a competitor can block their application by simply stating that there is no need. Imagine if a local ice cream shop had the ability to object to another ice cream shop opening its doors in town by simply stating there is no need for two ice cream shops in town.

A second absurd part of CON laws is the fact that application fees can range from as low as $100 up to $250,000, or in some states a percentage of the proposed project cost with no maximum. So, the more expensive the project, the more expensive the application. While some states have CON laws that are triggered beyond a certain threshold allowing existing providers some freedom to run their businesses without government interference, other states use expenditures to make sure that nothing happens without state approval, requiring a CON for any project over a certain amount. What these restrictions amount to is a covert government-run healthcare solution where healthcare administrators have to work hand in hand with the state government. 

This is not the only burden an applicant faces. An applicant must also deal with time delays that can stretch for months, even years. Some application periods run two to four months, but some can last as long as a year or more. If that is not enough, the government agency considers applications sometimes not on an as-needed basis, but infrequently, such as twice a year or, as in the case of a specific regulation in Ohio, once every four years.

There are many cases of entrepreneurs who respond to a need in the community to provide a service that was previously not offered or offered at a much higher price who have had to abandon their entrepreneurial activity. Applicants have to hire attorneys and experts to present evidence for why a service is needed and go through a long legal battle to receive government approval.

All of this is contradicting what Mises wrote about the consumer being the ultimate decider of entrepreneurial success. Even more damaging is the current situation when a pandemic requires hospitals to adjust quickly to an ever-changing healthcare need. Image a hospital simply not accepting patients with covid simply because they have reached the limit of beds allowed under their certificate of need. “Luckily,” twenty-five states suspended or loosened some of the CON laws during the pandemic to allow healthcare settings to provide adequate coverage of needs. But should a healthcare provider have to worry about appeasing the government in an emergency by filing paperwork to allow for changes in the number of patient beds, increases in the number of ventilators per hospital, etc. The answer should be a clear no. 

The recent report by the Institute for Justice provides a comprehensive survey of CON laws and the absurdity of most rules and regulations in them. The absurdity of CON laws is clear from the way state CON policies contradict each other in almost every aspect.

The authors of the study summarize their key findings as follows (I have taken three of the five key findings for brevity’s sake):

  1. Closely reviewing the nation’s 39 CON jurisdictions reveals an incoherent doctrine. There is no rhyme or reason to what services require a CON. This strongly suggests that CONs are driven less by the government’s perception of what will improve patient health and more by lobbying efforts of powerful insider groups within each state.
  2. CONs are not limited to facilities with large capital investments as originally imagined. CONs were first envisioned as a tool to prevent two hospitals from opening around the block from each other. Unfortunately, today, CONs are required for hundreds of minute, inexpensive and often mundane activities. Today, CONs in some states are required for such things as adding or removing a single hospital bed; converting an existing hospital bed to a different use (e.g., psychiatric bed to intensive care unit bed); adding ventilator services to a facility, performing a small or necessary renovation.
  3. CONs that apply solely to new technology undercut the justification that government must prevent duplication of services. If a state maintains a CON for “equipment utilizing technology not previously used in the state.”, it cannot be argued, that CON laws decrease costly duplication of services because, when there is no duplication of service.

But now with the outbreak of the covid pandemic, CON laws and similar regulations need to be eliminated. Repealing or eliminating regulations that work like CON laws does not offer a solution for the pandemic, but the pandemic exposed the absurdity with CON laws and how they harm patients. Many states have seen the light at the end of the tunnel and suspended or loosened CON requirements, but how states responded varies again. It is time to suspend all CON requirements, not just for covid reasons but for the benefit of all patients in the long run.  Author:

Georg Grassmueck

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Covid Crisis Has Helped Make the Blueprint for a European Superstate | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on August 8, 2020

The main problem with this record-breaking stimulus package is essentially the same one of all its predecessors over the last decade. Not only does the EU like to redistribute wealth from the north to the south with clockwork regularity, but all these plans also fail to incorporate any kind of serious checks and balances about where and how the money is spent.

Sound familiar?

This deal signaled the official adoption of the idea of debt mutualization as a funding tool, which clearly paves the way for far deeper EU centralization, even greater powers of taxation and, Brussels’s much more direct political power over national governments. This is already evident in the early drafts of the terms and conditions of the loans and grants in the package.

https://mises.org/wire/covid-crisis-has-helped-make-blueprint-european-superstate?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=27fdf502c4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_08_07_04_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-27fdf502c4-228343965

After intense negotiations, long days and nights of clashes, and a distinctly sour note underlying the entire summit, European Union leaders finally agreed on an unprecedented €1.82 trillion ($2.1 trillion) budget and covid recovery package. This agreement provides €750 billion in funding meant to counter the impact of the pandemic and also includes €390 billion in nonrepayable grants to the hardest-hit EU members, with Italy and Spain being the main recipients.

The harsh negotiations brought to the surface once again the deep economic, structural, and cultural divide between north and south. This divide has been at the core of every serious political and economic crisis in the bloc so far, and its reemergence served as yet another reminder of how unnatural, forced, and unsustainable the integration vision of the Europhiles really is. Their wider strategic aims, much like this covid relief package itself, are nothing more than a massive redistribution of wealth and a vain effort to impose uniformity on a radically diverse group of national identities, economic profiles, and local political realities.

As we have seen so many times in past crises, the main sticking point in these most recent “rescue” talks were the legitimate grievances and concerns of the richer countries in the north, including the Netherlands and Austria, about having to foot the bill yet again and bail out their cash-strapped southern neighbors. In this case, the disagreement centered on the question of loans vs. grants, as the richer members initially insisted that the immense sums of money they were forced to give away should at least be repaid at some point in future. And so, in the name of “solidarity,” the nations that put up some opposition, the “frugal four”—Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and the Netherlands—were named and shamed in the media, portrayed as heartless, Dickensian misers. Naturally, the fact that the chief beneficiaries of all that free money were in deep, chronic financial trouble long before the coronavirus even emerged was conveniently left out of the debate. Instead, the “frugal” were put under immense pressure to “do the right thing,” namely to agree that the majority of the support funding would be in the form of pure cash gifts. Apparently, these “persuasion” tactics also included histrionic outbursts: according to the BBC, “at one point French President Emmanuel Macron reportedly banged his fists on the table, as he told the ‘frugal four’ they were putting the European project in danger.”

The main problem with this record-breaking stimulus package is essentially the same one of all its predecessors over the last decade. Not only does the EU like to redistribute wealth from the north to the south with clockwork regularity, but all these plans also fail to incorporate any kind of serious checks and balances about where and how the money is spent. As a result, we keep seeing massive waste and levels of corruption that are normally associated with developing economies. The scale of this most recent package alone brings this issue into sharper focus, especially as it is underlaid by a joint borrowing scheme that enables poorer EU countries to take out cheap loans using the creditworthiness of their richer neighbors, which act as guarantors.

This brings us to the very practical shortcomings of the mechanics of this relief plan. All these loans and handouts will be financed through an unprecedented amount of debt, which is unsustainable and myopic in and of itself. The fact that this debt is shared, however, makes this “historic deal” all the more insidious, intensely political, and dooms it to failure. This deal signaled the official adoption of the idea of debt mutualization as a funding tool, which clearly paves the way for far deeper EU centralization, even greater powers of taxation and, Brussels’s much more direct political power over national governments. This is already evident in the early drafts of the terms and conditions of the loans and grants in the package. There no real strings attached when it comes to transparency and the all practical aspects of how the funds will be used, but there are heavily political requirements. For example, 30 percent of the aid must be spent on a “green” agenda and on combating climate change. There’s also clear language in the agreements that ties the distribution of the aid to compliance with “the rule of law.” That’s a thinly veiled threat against conservative member states like Poland and Hungary, where the democratically elected national governments are known to pass laws that the EU frowns upon. There is, therefore, clear and purely political conditionality attached to that great “unifying” plan.

It might be wrapped in idealistic and melodramatic language, e.g., “rescuing our shared European future,” but what this deal is really about is a blatant power grab. The self-inflicted damage caused by the shutdowns and the lockdowns has been effectively misattributed to the coronavirus itself, which has allowed politicians and Eurocrats to present this recession, that was already evident since the end of last year, as a natural disaster and therefore nobody’s fault. In turn, the resulting economic fallout and the deep financial crisis affecting countless households has been used as an excuse to usher in policies geared towards more centralization. Thus, the answer to all our current problems is “a stronger EU,” even though it was that exact mindset that caused them in the first place.

In this light, the “cure” that is forced upon all Europeans now is not just worse than the disease; it is the disease.

 

Author:

Contact Claudio Grass

Claudio Grass is a Mises Ambassador and an independent precious metals advisor based out of Switzerland. His Austrian approach helps his clients find tailor-made solutions to store their physical precious metals under Swiss law. ClaudioGrass.ch.

 

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Archbishop Viganò: Dictatorships arise because not enough voices oppose them | Blogs | LifeSite

Posted by M. C. on May 29, 2020

There was a time when, with the obedience of the masses, a hellish dictatorship committed a very serious crime, making itself responsible for the deportation and death of millions of innocent people, only because of their faith and line of descent. Even then the mainstream media praised those in power and remained silent about their crimes;…

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/archbishop-vigano-dictatorships-arise-because-not-enough-voices-oppose-them

Maike Hickson

May 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has responded to a German Rabbi, Jehoschua Ahrens, who called the Viganò Appeal concerning the corona crisis and its dangers for constitutional liberties a “shock,” adding that he is glad that the German bishops have distanced themselves from it.

The Italian prelate defended issuing the May 7 appeal, stating: “I think it is the duty of each one of us to express our concerns about a situation that, taking advantage of the Covid crisis, goes far beyond reasonable safety measures, imposing on entire nations the deprivation of constitutional freedoms.”

Archbishop Viganò warned that recent German history has much to teach about the rise of a “hellish dictatorship” that few opposed and spoke out against at the time it was happening.

“There was a time when, with the obedience of the masses, a hellish dictatorship committed a very serious crime, making itself responsible for the deportation and death of millions of innocent people, only because of their faith and line of descent,” he said.

“Even then the mainstream media praised those in power and remained silent about their crimes; even then doctors and scientists lent their work to a delusional plan of domination; even then those who dared to raise their voices were accused of ‘conspiracy theories.’ One had to wait until the end of the Second World War to discover with horror the truth about which many had hitherto remained silent,” he added.

The Archbishop warned that those who today “delegitimize” the Appeal as an expression of “conspiracy theories” do not “realize the real dangers to which the entire human family is exposed.”

“But I am certain that both Catholics and all men of good will – and among them I think I can include the children of Abraham – have at heart the greater glory of God, the respect for the dignity of individuals, and the freedoms of peoples,” he said.

Rabbi Ahrens’ criticism of Viganò’s Appeal was reported on May 20 by Katholisch.de, the German bishops’ official news website. The Rabbi’s original words first appeared in the newspaper Jüdische Allgemeine.

Katholisch.de especially highlighted the following words of the Rabbi concerning the so-called “conspiracy theories”:

“We have known for some time that there are people within the churches who adhere to such theories. But now they have the courage to express these opinions even more openly.”

While stressing the good collaboration with the Catholic Church in Germany, Ahrens points out that there is still a “minority” among the Catholics in Germany who have conspiracy theories. While insisting that Jews themselves are less “prone to conspiracy theories,” he states that “we know, after all, that in general these theories are about us.”

While rejecting the idea that God is punishing us with this corona crisis, Rabbi Ahrens points out that “it is an intention of Jewry: to turn a negative into a positive, to turn a curse into a blessing,” that is to say, to learn lessons from this crisis.

Archbishop Viganò’s response to the Rabbi was only covered in part by Katholisch.de (adding a link to the full letter only in the end of the post), despite the Archbishop asking that his letter be published in full. Katholisch.de did not even mention that they received the letter from the Italian prelate with this request. LifeSiteNews is pleased to provide the full letter below.

The May 7 Viganò Appeal– which was also signed by Cardinals Gerhard Müller, Joseph Zen and Janis Pujats, as well as Bishops Athanasius Schneider and Joseph Strickland – had called into question the world-wide response of lockdowns and strong restrictions of freedoms of citizens as measures against the coronavirus outbreak.

The signatories of this Appeal, among whom are also journalists, experts, and other clergy, showed concern for the Church and the world that the COVID-19 pandemic is being used as a “pretext” by world leaders to “control” people, strip them of their fundamental rights, while providing a “disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control.” They also reminded the public of the liberty of the Catholic Church who “firmly asserts her autonomy to govern, worship, and teach,” thus making clear that the state has not the authority to decide over church closures. So far, more than 51,000 people have signed this document.

***

Full letter by Archbishop Viganò in response to Rabbi Ahrens:

Dear Rabbi Ahrens,
Since I have been criticized for my Appeal for the Church and the world, I ask Katholisch.de to give me permission to answer you.
I must tell you, Dr. Ahrens, that I am not a little surprised by your words when you say: “We have known for some time that there are people within the churches who adhere to such theories. But now they have the courage to express these opinions even more openly.”

I think it is the duty of each one of us to express our concerns about a situation that, taking advantage of the Covid crisis, goes far beyond reasonable safety measures, imposing on entire nations the deprivation of constitutional freedoms: this may not have happened in Germany, but it has certainly happened in many countries.

I ask you, dear Rabbi Ahrens: in your opinion, is it still permissible to express oneself freely, or are there subjects that cannot be discussed anymore in a civil manner? If you can express your disagreement with the content of the Appeal, why should “people within the churches” not be entitled to express themselves freely, as well? And why do you think that one would need to “have courage” in order to do so, as if it were a matter of mere rantings without any reference to reality?

To dismiss these concerns – which have been expressed, moreover, by reputable personalities – as “conspiracy theories” does not seem to me a constructive attitude: especially if one does not have the merit of disproving what is considered untrue. I therefore ask you: in what, specifically, do you disagree with the text of the Appeal? What in the Appeal represents a “shock” for you?

Believe me: I would have never thought that the Appeal could offend you; on the other hand, why should a Rabbi himself feel criticized when there is now talk of the New World Order? The Messiah that Israel awaits is Rex pacificus, Princeps pacis, Pater futuri saeculi [King of Peace, Prince of Peace, Father of the world to come]: not a tyrant without morals who dominates the world by subjugating men as slaves. This rather applies to the Antichrist.

Let us now come to the spiritual significance of Covid. In the Old Testament there are many examples of punishments sent to the Chosen People by God, and the Prophets many times warned the Jews to abandon idolatry, and not to contaminate themselves with the pagans, and to remain faithful to the one true God. I recall here the words of the Prophet Jeremiah, after the burning of Jerusalem by Babylonian troops in 585 B.C.: “Her adversaries have taken over, her enemies prosper; for the Lord has afflicted her for her countless sins” (Lam. 1:5).

This vision, which the Church of Christ shares, shows us a just and merciful God, who rewards the good and punishes the wicked; who like a loving Father punishes also His disobedient children, to bring them back to follow His holy Law. For this reason, “turning the negative into the positive, turning a curse into a blessing” is achieved by recognizing that one has committed a sin, that one has broken the covenant with God, that one has deserved His chastisements. Then the epidemic also becomes an opportunity to return to the Lord, worship Him in His holy temple, follow His precepts.

There was a time when, with the obedience of the masses, a hellish dictatorship committed a very serious crime, making itself responsible for the deportation and death of millions of innocent people, only because of their faith and line of descent. Even then the mainstream media praised those in power and remained silent about their crimes; even then doctors and scientists lent their work to a delusional plan of domination; even then those who dared to raise their voices were accused of “conspiracy theories.” One had to wait until the end of the Second World War to discover with horror the truth about which many had hitherto remained silent.

I am sure that those who today delegitimize the Appeal as an expression of “conspiracy theories” do not realize the real dangers to which the entire human family is exposed. But I am certain that both Catholics and all men of good will – and among them, I think I can include the children of Abraham – have at heart the greater glory of God, the respect for the dignity of individuals, and the freedoms of peoples. Beatus populus, cujus Dominus Deus ejus (Ps 143:15).

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop, Apostolic Nuncio

May 22, 2020, Feast of the Ascension of Our Lord

Translation by LifeSite’s Dr. Maike Hickson

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »