Is Ivermectin the miracle cure for Covid-19? Wait and see…



Ivermectin is a medication used to treat many types of parasite infestations.[3] In humans, this includes head licescabiesriver blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasistrichuriasisascariasis, and lymphatic filariasis.[3][4][5][6] In veterinary medicine, it is used to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis, among other indications.[5] It can be taken by mouth or applied to the skin for external infestations.[3][7]

Common side effects include fever, itching, and skin rash when taken by mouth,[3] and red eyes, dry skin, and burning skin when used topically for head lice.[8] It is unclear if it is safe for use during pregnancy, but is probably acceptable for use during breastfeeding.[9] It belongs to the avermectin family of medications.[3] It works through many mechanisms of action that result in death of the targeted parasites.[3]

Ivermectin was discovered in 1975 and came into medical use in 1981.[10][11] It is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines.[12] Ivermectin is FDA-approved as an antiparasitic agent.[13]..


This came via WhatsApp:

*Caution: Numerous people are pushing their agenda. Be cautious, even sceptical when it comes to so-called miracle cures!


This is compelling.

Watch the 2 short videos in this link. 11 minutes and 13 minutes.

Understand who is on the board of NIH.

The whole Ivermectin story. It can PREVENT & CURE Covid 19.

You will want to share this after you have watched.

High time our Ministry of Health cancel the order for covid-19 vaccine and order Ivermectin for all Malaysians, both those who are infected and the general population for prevention. We can be covid-19 free in a few months and save alot of money.


Excerpts from:


What’s Behind the Ivermectin-for-COVID Buzz?

— Maverick physicians spurn randomized trials while “people are dying”

by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting, MedPage Today January 6, 2021

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance logo over a box of Ivermectin tablets


“We said, we see that this works,” Marik told MedPage Today. “Then lo and behold in June, the RECOVERY trial was published, and it showed that dexamethasone reduced the risk of dying in people with COVID in the hospital.” (Marik continues to advocate for methylprednisolone, which is more potent than dexamethasone.)

Th usee group recently published their observational experience with MATH+ in COVID-19 from two centers — Marik’s and United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, where another FLCCC leader, Joseph Varon, MD, leads the critical care unit — in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine. “The average hospital mortality at these 2 centers in over 300 patients treated is 5.1%, which represents more than a 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality compared to the average published hospital mortality of 22.9% among COVID-19 patients,” the paper states.

What the Science Says

FLCCC members see their data as strong, but many experts disagree with their interpretation.

Regarding ivermectin for prophylaxis, they cite four randomized controlled trials and three observational studies. Two of the RCTs were done in Egypt, one in Argentina, and one in Bangladesh, ranging in size from 100 to 300 patients. Marik and colleagues also cite “natural experiments” in Peru, Brazil, and Paraguay where ivermectin was distributed widely, with “large decreases in case counts … soon after distribution began.”

For ivermectin in mild illness, they cite five RCTs: two in Bangladesh, and one each in Iraq, Brazil, and Spain, varying in size from 24 patients (Spain) to 722 patients (Brazil). For ivermectin in hospitalized patients, they cite four RCTs in Egypt, Iran, India, and Bangladesh, ranging from 72 to 400 patients. They also cite a host of observational studies and case series in both mild and severe illness.

The lone study done in the U.S. was a retrospective study, published in CHEST, of 280 hospitalized patients in Florida by Juliana Rajter, MD, of Broward Health Medical Center, and colleagues, in which 173 patients who got ivermectin were compared with 107 who didn’t get the therapy. “Most patients in both groups also received hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both,” the study states.

Kory is the corresponding author of the ivermectin review and meta-analysis. In an interview with MedPage Today, Kory said he was frustrated by criticism of the evidence.

“If someone wants to discount those studies … and says they want to do an RCT with placebo, that’s problematic for me,” Kory said. “I could not have a patient admitted to my care and give placebo knowing what I know about ivermectin.”

Kory emphasized that FLCCC members “are firm believers in evidence-based medicine. But we disagree with how most practice evidence-based medicine. We think they are way too biased toward randomized controlled trials and completely dismiss evidence from anything but RCTs. We think that’s harmful and loses a lot of valuable data.”

‘Lowering Standards’

Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, a medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn’t believe clinicians “should be lowering our standards of evidence because we’re in a pandemic.”

“This group should be advocating strongly for a large, generalizable randomized trial if they believe so strongly in the efficacy of ivermectin,” Joffe said. “If in fact it is effective, the only way to convince the clinical and scientific community and allow patients all over the world to benefit is to prove the case in such a trial.”

“With good data and safety monitoring, if the benefits are as overwhelming as they claim, the trial could be stopped early on the basis of interim data and the treatment rapidly instituted,” Joffe added.

Andrew Hill, PhD, a senior visiting research fellow in the pharmacology department at Liverpool University in England, recently presented a similar meta-analysis of the data on ivermectin, which was posted on YouTube just last week. It supported the FLCCC’s conclusions.

Marik and Kory said Hill has been contracted by the World Health Organization to conduct an updated review of the evidence on ivermectin, but MedPage Today was unable to confirm it.

Zain Chagla, MD, an infectious diseases physician at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, reviewed each of the trials in Hill’s review in a Twitter thread. He called the overall evidence “very low grade” and was also unhappy that Hill disseminated it as a video.

“We always want to see these things published, rather than me walking through a video, pulling these studies myself,” Chagla told MedPage Today.

He said if there was indeed a signal for efficacy, he would have expected ivermectin to be rolled into the SOLIDARITY or RECOVERY study by now.

“I want it to work, but at the same time, this whole thing feels like déjà vu of the first two months of the pandemic when we weren’t decided about hydroxychloroquine,” Chagla said. “We don’t want to come around a year later saying it didn’t help and it may have hurt.”

Kory, Marik, nor Varon said they had no financial relationships with companies involved with ivermectin, including MedinCell or Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. MedinCell didn’t return a request for comment; Edenbridge said it has no financial relationships with any members of FLCCC.


Marik and Kory say they’re frustrated that their work is now being championed by the political right, and that it’s become politicized at all. The group has had to distinguish itself from America’s Frontline Doctors, which gained notoriety for its pro-hydroxychloroquine, anti-lockdown rhetoric last summer.

“This is not a political issue and it should never be,” Marik said. “We are driven by the science and the data, not by politics or anything else.”

“It angers me, when I hear that it’s a conspiracy, that this virus doesn’t exist, that there aren’t that many deaths,” he added. “You have to come to the ICU and see that people are dying to realize this is no hoax, this is real.”

Marik finds it particularly disappointing that his work has been misinterpreted as potentially undermining vaccination.

“That’s complete nonsense,” he said. “I was vaccinated yesterday and I believe this is a bridge to vaccination,” noting that slow vaccine roll-outs, vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine quality will likely mean the world will be dealing with COVID-19 for a long time to come.

“We need to do something in the meantime,” he said.


Kristina Fiore leads MedPage’s enterprise & investigative reporting team. She’s been a medical journalist for more than a decade and her work has been recognized by Barlett & Steele, AHCJ, SABEW, and others. Send story tips to Follow


Prof. Eli Schwartz, founder of the Center for Travel Medicine and Tropical Disease at Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, last week completed a clinical trial of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved drug ivermectin, a broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent that has also been shown to fight viruses.

The double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 100 people with mild to moderate cases of the disease who were not hospitalized for the virus. It tested whether ivermectin could shorten the viral shedding period, allowing them to test negative for coronavirus and leave isolation in only a few days.

Schwartz said he hopes the new study will “be a cornerstone to get this permission.”“The numbers are not high, but they are convincing enough that they should open the gates for more studies and for its preliminary use, especially when we don’t have anything else to offer,” he said.

Sheba researcher: Antiparasitic drug reduces length of COVID-19 infection

According to his yet to be published data, Schwartz said that the drug was shown to help “cure” people of the virus within just six days.


An Israeli tropical-disease expert says he has new proof that a drug used to fight parasites in third-world countries could help reduce the length of infection for people who contract coronavirus.

Prof. Eli Schwartz, founder of the Center for Travel Medicine and Tropical Disease at Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, last week completed a clinical trial of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved drug ivermectin, a broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent that has also been shown to fight viruses.

The double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 100 people with mild to moderate cases of the disease who were not hospitalized for the virus. It tested whether ivermectin could shorten the viral shedding period, allowing them to test negative for coronavirus and leave isolation in only a few days.

According to his still unpublished data, Schwartz said the drug was shown to help “cure” people of the virus within just six days. Moreover, the chances of testing negative for coronavirus were three times higher for the group who received ivermectin than the placebo, he told The Jerusalem Post.

“From a public-health point of view, the majority of patients with corona are mild cases, and 90% of these people are isolated outside of the hospital,” Schwartz said. “If you have any kind of drug that can shorten the duration of the infectiousness of these patients, that would be dramatic, as then they will not infect others.”

Moreover, instead of isolating for a minimum of 10 days and maybe more, this period could be shortened, benefiting the economy.Finally, although Schwartz’s study did not focus on this, he said the results indicate that it is likely if the drug were given at the beginning of one’s illness, it could prevent deterioration and hospitalization.

Schwartz is currently preparing the data from his study for publication. On Monday, he is scheduled to present his findings to the Health Ministry and will also submit a report to the FDA.

Since April, there have been many trials and analyses suggesting the effectiveness of ivermectin against the novel coronavirus. But only a handful have been conducted effectively as double-blind, placebo-controlled tests such as Schwartz’s.

“There is insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19,” the US National Institutes of Health said in a statement last Thursday.

“Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”

However, NIH did verify that for other indications, “ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well tolerated.”

“Ivermectin is a chemical therapeutic agent, and it has significant risks associated with it,” Hebrew University of Jerusalem Prof. Ya’acov Nahmias told the Post.

“We should be very cautious about using this type of medication to treat a viral disease that the vast majority of the public is going to recover from even without this treatment,” he said.

When Israel launched its mass vaccination campaign, there were many who believed there would no longer be a need for medication, Schwartz said.

“Now we know that this was an illusion,” he said. “Even in Israel, not everyone is taking the vaccine. There is quite a big population of youngsters under the age of 16 for whom it will be at least months until we have a vaccine for them. And if you look worldwide, vaccinating everyone will take a few years.”

Because ivermectin is FDA-approved, its safety does not have to be proven, Schwartz said. Rather, approval just needs to be received for its use in this new indication, he said.

Schwartz said he hopes the new study will “be a cornerstone to get this permission.”“The numbers are not high, but they are convincing enough that they should open the gates for more studies and for its preliminary use, especially when we don’t have anything else to offer,” he said.


Note how the report by India Today is twisted to fit the purpose of someone who is pro Ivermectin. The report says nothing about Ivermectin. In fact, the report points to vaccination:

“According to a spokesperson, Uttar Pradesh has become the first state in the country to vaccinate more than six lakh people. More than 2.80 crore tests have been done in the state.”

Nevertheless, it is correct to say that the authorities in Uttar Pradesh credit Ivermectin


India Today Web Desk New DelhiFebruary 9, 2021UPDATED: February 9, 2021 22:40 IST

ttar Pradesh has reported zero Covid deaths in the last 24 hours. According to state Covid tally, updated daily in the evening, UP recorded zero deaths and only 113 new cases of the deadly novel coronavirus.

At least 37 of the total 75 districts of the state reported no new cases, an official said.

According to the data, the state’s recovery rate has risen to over 98 per cent. There are now only 3,306 active cases in the state, the data said.

Of the total active cases, 908 are in home isolation and 332 undergoing treatment in private hospitals, while the remaining are in different government facilities, a government official said.

As many as 8,691 deaths have been reported so far and 5,89,565 people have recovered, he said.

A government spokesperson said Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s strategy in dealing with the pandemic had proved successful with the state achieving a recovery rate of 98 per cent, which has surpassed the national average.

According to a spokesperson, Uttar Pradesh has become the first state in the country to vaccinate more than six lakh people. More than 2.80 crore tests have been done in the state.

BJP leader BL Santhosh also congratulated Yogi Adityanath for zero Covid-19 deaths in UP on Twitter.

“Uttar Pradesh , most populous state in the country today reports zero death due to #COVID19. New cases in double digits. Well done @myogiadityanath,” B Santhosh’s tweet said.




Ivermectin may not be the ‘silver bullet’ antiviral against COVID-19

By Dr. Liji Thomas, MD Feb 1 2021

Since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), cases worldwide have crossed the hundred million mark, with over 2.2 million deaths recorded.

The overwhelming demands of the pandemic on public health and healthcare systems have made it a matter of the utmost urgency to identify safe and effective antivirals that target this infection.

A team of researchers based in Peru and the U.S. recently examined the role of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin in treating COVID-19. The team has released their findings on the medRxivpreprint server.

The aim of the study

Ivermectin is a semisynthetic drug, used to treat helmintic infestations. Its mode of operation is via binding to glutamate-gated chloride ion channels, found in invertebrate nerve and muscle cells.

As part of the avermectins, ivermectin is extensively used to treat and control parasitic infestations in large animals, including tick infestations and scabies. It has also been used to prevent human filariasis and to treat scabies in humans. With a good safety profile at recommended dosages, and with FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) approval, it became a mainstream drug in the treatment of COVID-19.

Earlier reports suggested that it had antiviral activity in both RNA and DNA viruses. This was followed by another study examining its pharmacokinetics, which concluded that even at tenfold the approved human dosage, the compound could not inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in lung tissue.

The current study aimed to review the range of studies that reported the clinical efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment of the illness.

Study details

The researchers included 12 qualitative and five quantitative studies, mostly preprints. These studies originated from all over the world, two being from the U.S., two from Spain, two from South America, one each from Iraq and Iran, and four from Bangladesh.

Altogether, there were around 7,400 participants, with a mean age of 47.5 years. About 60% were male. The treatment protocols for all included studies comprised ivermectin either alone or in combination with another anti-inflammatory, antibiotic or blood-thinning drug like azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, enoxaparin, aspirin or dicloxacillin.

The majority of patients had been diagnosed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT PCR), and were hospitalized, though one study included asymptomatic families.

Related Stories

Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had missing data on study outcomes, leading to a serious risk of bias. Four cohort studies also showed a high risk of bias.

In one analysis of four preprints, based on retrospective studies, there was no evidence of reduced mortality following ivermectin use. Patient recovery was also not affected.

The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence, using mortality and recovery outcomes. The mortality outcome was evaluated in over 3,600 participants, while recovery was assessed in about 400 participants. The first was based on five retrospective studies, and the latter from three preprint retrospective studies.

In both analyses, the degree of certainty of evidence was low, with a high risk of bias.

What are the implications?

Ivermectin was not significantly associated with a lower mortality or higher recovery of patients in this meta-analysis. However, the majority of studies were preprints, allowing for later changes in the data on which these conclusions are based.

The basis of ivermectin use was because of a study published in Australia that reported this drug’s in vitro efficacy in Vero cells in culture. The clinical applicability of this finding is far from certain, but physicians rapidly began to use ivermectin in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

This was more likely in hard-hit countries such as Peru, where ivermectin became a first-line treatment and preventive against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

However, the safety and efficacy of this drug in preventing and treating this illness is not yet proven, especially because the studies were poorly designed. This has cast doubt on the accuracy of the effect measures. Even when the odds ratio showed a significant benefit for ivermectin use in terms of an 85% reduction in mortality, the certainty of evidence was conceded to be very low.

Thirdly, the dose effective in human SARS-CoV-2 infections is still unknown, with the study doses ranging from 120 uM/kg to 200 uM/kg per dose, and the route of administration varying from intramuscular to oral. Such high doses have not been approved for human use.

Finally, efficacy testing of ivermectin in humans must be based on a dose-response trial with a placebo control group. In the absence of such studies, the optimal high dosage of ivermectin remains unclear.

The heterogeneous study populations and methods may also grossly reduce the accuracy of the review’s findings. After adjusting for such differences, the researchers found that their assessment of biases and effect measure size was close to the actual results. The lack of certainty of evidence for the estimated effect, as shown by GRADE criteria, indicates a serious difference between the true and estimated effect.

More randomized clinical trials need to be included in a meta-analysis, with fewer biases. At the moment, there is no evidence that the use of ivermectin changes the clinical outcome of inpatients or outpatients.”

*Important Notice

medRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.Journal reference:

Dr. Liji Thomas

Dr. Liji Thomas is an OB-GYN, who graduated from the Government Medical College, University of Calicut, Kerala, in 2001. Liji practiced as a full-time consultant in obstetrics/gynecology in a private hospital for a few years following her graduation. She has counseled hundreds of patients facing issues from pregnancy-related problems and infertility, and has been in charge of over 2,000 deliveries, striving always to achieve a normal delivery rather than operative.



COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines


Last Updated: February 11, 2021

Ivermectin is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiparasitic drug that is used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies.1 It is also being evaluated for its potential to reduce the rate of malaria transmission by killing mosquitoes that feed on treated humans and livestock.2 For these indications, ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well tolerated.1,3 Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection.

Proposed Mechanism of Action and Rationale for Use in Patients With COVID-19

Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.4,5 In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.6 Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.4,7-9 Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.10-12

Some observational cohorts and clinical trials have evaluated the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Data from some of these studies can be found in Table 2c.


  • There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.


Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.13 However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.14,15 Even though ivermectin appears to accumulate in the lung tissue, predicted systemic plasma and lung tissue concentrations are much lower than 2 µM, the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.16-19 Subcutaneous administration of ivermectin 400 µg/kg had no effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in hamsters. However, there was a reduction in olfactory deficit (measured using a food-finding test) and a reduction in the interleukin (IL)-6:IL-10 ratio in lung tissues.20

Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,21-24 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19,25-28 greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels,26,27 shorter time to viral clearance,21,26 or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.21,26,28

However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:

  • The sample size of most of the trials was small.
  • Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
  • Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
  • Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
  • The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
  • The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.

Table 2c includes summaries of key studies. Because most of these studies have significant limitations, the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions on the clinical efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide further guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

Monitoring, Adverse Effects, and Drug-Drug Interactions

  • Ivermectin is generally well tolerated. Adverse effects may include dizziness, pruritis, nausea, or diarrhea.
  • Neurological adverse effects have been reported with the use of ivermectin for the treatment of onchocerciasis and other parasitic diseases, but it is not clear whether these adverse effects were caused by ivermectin or the underlying conditions.29
  • Ivermectin is a minor cytochrome P 3A4 substrate and a p-glycoprotein substrate.
  • Ivermectin is generally given on an empty stomach with water; however, administering ivermectin with food increases its bioavailability.
  • The FDA issued a warning in April 2020 that ivermectin intended for use in animals should not be used to treat COVID-19 in humans.
  • Please see Table 2c for additional information.

Considerations in Pregnancy

In animal studies, ivermectin was shown to be teratogenic when given in doses that were maternotoxic. These results raise concerns about administering ivermectin to people who are in the early stages of pregnancy (prior to 10 weeks gestation).30 A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed the incidence of poor maternal and fetal outcomes after ivermectin was used for its antiparasitic properties during pregnancy. However, the study was unable to establish a causal relationship between ivermectin use and poor maternal or fetal outcomes due to the quality of evidence. There are numerous reports of inadvertent ivermectin use in early pregnancy without apparent adverse effects.31-33 Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to establish the safety of using ivermectin in pregnant people, especially those in the later stages of pregnancy.

One study reported that the ivermectin concentrations secreted in breastmilk after a single oral dose were relatively low. No studies have evaluated the ivermectin concentrations in breastmilk in patients who received multiple doses.

Considerations in Children

Ivermectin is used in children weighing >15 kg for the treatment of helminthic infections, pediculosis, and scabies. The safety of using ivermectin in children weighing <15 kg has not been well established. Ivermectin is generally well tolerated in children, with a side effect profile similar to the one seen in adults. Currently, there are no available pediatric data from clinical trials to inform the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in children.

Clinical Trials

Several clinical trials that are evaluating the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 are currently underway or in development. Please see for the latest information.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s