• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Vaccines the Cause of Britain’s Drop In Covid Cases, Not Lockdown, Says KCL Epidemiologist

by Michael Curzon
15 April 2021 2:08 PM
Influenza vaccine injection. Injection into a patient's arm of the 2018/2019 seasonal influenza (flu) vaccine for the northern hemisphere season. This is a quadrivalent inactivated vaccine designed for intramuscular and subcutaneous injection. Inactivated influenza vaccines contain dead influenza viruses. When injected, these stimulate the body's immune system to produce antibodies that protect against future infection by live viruses. Influenza vaccination is recommended for the elderly, the very young, and anyone suffering from respiratory or circulatory disease. It is provided annually because of the need to protect against new strains. This is a vaccine from the Sanofi Pasteur Europe company.

Influenza vaccine injection. Injection into a patient's arm of the 2018/2019 seasonal influenza (flu) vaccine for the northern hemisphere season. This is a quadrivalent inactivated vaccine designed for intramuscular and subcutaneous injection. Inactivated influenza vaccines contain dead influenza viruses. When injected, these stimulate the body's immune system to produce antibodies that protect against future infection by live viruses. Influenza vaccination is recommended for the elderly, the very young, and anyone suffering from respiratory or circulatory disease. It is provided annually because of the need to protect against new strains. This is a vaccine from the Sanofi Pasteur Europe company.

A King’s College London epidemiologist has said that Britain’s “exemplar vaccine programme” – which has seen almost 40 million first and second doses administered – is behind the drop in Covid cases since January. Professor Tim Spector’s view contrasts with that of the Prime Minister who believes lockdown – not the vaccine – has delivered “this improvement in the pandemic“. The Mail has the story.

Vaccines are behind Britain’s sharp drop in coronavirus cases since January, top experts claimed today – despite Boris Johnson insisting lockdown was the reason for the fall.  

Professor Tim Spector, a King’s College London epidemiologist who runs the UK’s largest Covid symptom tracking study, said the epidemic had “mainly” been squashed by the “exemplar vaccine programme”.

With more than 60% of the population jabbed with at least one dose and up to 10% protected due to prior infection, Professor Spector added Britain was “starting to see herd immunity take effect”.

His comments come after data from his symptom-tracking app showed a 17% drop in daily cases last week, with an estimated 1,600 new symptomatic infections a day across the country – down from 60,000 at the peak in January.

Separate Test and Trace figures showed new cases in England had dipped by 34% last week, with 19,196 positive tests recorded in the seven days to April 7th – compared to 29,178 at the end of March. 

Professor Spector said: “As the UK slowly exits lockdown, I’m encouraged to see Covid cases continue to fall with our rates among the lowest in Europe. 

“In fact, the UK closely mirrors cases in Israel with its exemplar vaccine programme. Based on our data and countries like Israel, I believe the fall in cases since January is mainly thanks to the vaccination programme and less about the strict lockdown the UK has been under since late December. 

“With up to 60% of the population vaccinated and around five to 10% with natural immunity due to infection, we’re starting to see herd immunity take effect. This should prevent future large-scale outbreaks.”

Professor Spector warned it was inevitable cases would pick up again as restrictions are eased over the coming months. But he said any outbreaks would be “smaller” and “manageable” and among groups yet to be vaccinated.

The Prime Minister has been underplaying the impact of the vaccine for some weeks. As well as pinning the fall in Covid cases on lockdown rather than on the vaccine rollout, he recently said that vaccinated people must not meet indoors because jabs “are not giving 100% protection” – this despite the fact that the risk of catching a symptomatic Covid infection for two people who have been vaccinated is about one in 400,000. His confidence in lockdowns has, however, stood firm, despite an increasing number of studies showing they’re ineffective.

The report by the Mail is worth reading in full.

Tags: CaseExit strategyLockdownsTim SpectorVaccine

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Government Pays Firm £90 Million to Check If Passengers Are In Quarantine After Arriving In UK

Next Post

Let’s Show the Red Card to Vaccine Passports for Football Fans

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JohnK
JohnK
1 year ago

And the interesting thing would be: what is the question? A simple yes or no to “revoke the objective signed into law by TM”? Could leave any future policy wide open to a more pragmatic, reasoned approach (in a sane world).

60
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 year ago

“Britain is legally obliged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 100% over the next 27 years, an objective signed into law by Theresa May.”

I have stated more than once that given the wilful and wholesale disregard for LAW that has taken place in this country these last 3.5 years there is absolutely no legal obligation to follow any so-called legislation that will bring massive harm to this country and its people. In fact to not rescind this legislation would be a further act of treachery against this country and its people. There is no requirement for this insane legislation to remain on the statute book.

The whole concept of ‘Net Zero’ is based on corrupt, not logical or genuine science and is a grotesque insult to the people of this country.

Pursuing the insanity of net zero is quite simply Treason.

Last edited 1 year ago by huxleypiggles
246
0
George L
George L
1 year ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Spot on Hux.. I agree wholeheartedly with every word..

71
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 year ago
Reply to  George L

Thanks George 👍

30
-1
DickieA
DickieA
1 year ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

100% agree.

Marco Longhi, the MP for Dudley North, said: “Given the complexity of this issue and its far-reaching consequences, I believe that involving the public through a referendum is right.
“A proper debate has never been had, and it should be. A referendum would require the Government to communicate the intricacies of the 2050 Net Zero target to the public, fostering a better understanding of the challenges and benefits.”

The debate does not just need to discuss the inticacies of the 2050 Net Zero target. The debate should be the one we are never offered – whether man’s CO2 emissions are the primary driver of climate.

83
0
Alan
Alan
1 year ago
Reply to  DickieA

All that is needed is reference to the Earth’s Energy Balance Diagram which is the basis of the man-made global warming scam. It shows the energy from the sun is 161W/m2 and the energy from the atmosphere from the so called back radiation is 333W/m2, more than twice. Only fools will believe this and we have 650 of them in the Commons. If the atmosphere can generate this amount of energy continuously lets find a way to get it into our homes and we will have free, unlimited heat.

Earth's Energy Balance Diagram.png
3
0
CHRIS
CHRIS
1 year ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Top comment. And the most treasonous of all are the complicit Mainstream Media, organisations where true journalists with courage seem not to exist. They could end this madness in months with proper reporting showing people how much harm the mad Net Zero objective will cause. BBC? Sky News? ITV? Channel 4/5? What jokes these woke propaganda outfits are.

46
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 year ago
Reply to  CHRIS

Thanks Chris and I wholeheartedly agree with your necessarily brutal assessment of the MSM 👍

16
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago
Reply to  CHRIS

Yes but Net Zero was waved through Parliament 4 years ago. It is going to take an awful lot of Investigative Journalism to turn the tide of public opinion on this issue 4 years after it became law. Most people will still be getting their evening News from climate activist channels like BBC and SKY, who keep the “climate crisis” narrative flowing on a daily basis. Even GB News are not having an all out assault on Net Zero and the Eco Socialist Climate Fraud. It is ok for us on this website to all agree with each other about this pseudo scientific scam and to call it out for what it is, but another task entirely to think all these mainstream pretend to save the planet channels will suddenly start questioning any of it. ——Because that is not going to happen. —-Infact the opposite is true. They are beside themselves with joy that they are able to film all the wild fires and say “Look we told you so “

12
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Yes, but there will be a whole army of pretend to save the planet groups and individuals who will sue the government should they renege on any Net Zero commitments. Have a look to see what has just happened in Montana where a bunch of children took the State to Court for supposedly endangering their futures by failing to have draconian enough climate policies.

9
0
George L
George L
1 year ago

And wouldn’t that be a great chance to fake it eh.. I just can see the headlines now.. “The Great British Public Go for ZERO”



36
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 year ago
Reply to  George L

No question about that George. You can bet your life that Brexit will have been a “lessons learned” experience, ie never again 😉

54
0
nige.oldfart
nige.oldfart
1 year ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Yep. They know they don’t represent the people, just the claque, and to rub salt into the wounds, they don’t care either.

44
-2
EppingBlogger
EppingBlogger
1 year ago
Reply to  George L

They used to say that about Brexit. Oh, we will never win a referen dum, they said.

Trouble is, having won, the creeps in Parliament and the MSM totally ignored the public.

51
0
JayBee
JayBee
1 year ago

Alternatively, just grow a pair, ditch it and try to win the GE that way.
Nah, not gonna happen.
That would require having a principle and above all a will to take on the responsibility for ones decision.

54
0
TheGreenAcres
TheGreenAcres
1 year ago

Yeah that’s gonna sell. Vote for Net Zero and 90% of the populate get: no private cars, a foreign holiday once a decade if your lucky, you will pay a fortune in electricity to have a cold house five months of the year, power rationing whenever it’s cloudy and calm, travel outside your immediate area is restricted….

No chance of a referendum.

80
0
George L
George L
1 year ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

I think DEATH is quite high up on the list of wishful thinking politicos.. 😉

22
0
Lockdown Sceptic
Lockdown Sceptic
1 year ago

There should be no referendum. There is no man made Climate Change.

Net Zero is Evil and should be dropped

02a Net Zero great leap backwards MONOCHROME copy.jpg
76
0
NeilParkin
NeilParkin
1 year ago

We are the last people to be deciding such an important matter. We’re idiots, or at leaset enough of us are idiots that believe the bullshit science that ‘Carry on Regardless’ will win the day.

Should that happen, (and it will. Guess who will be looking after the counting machines…), it will be a policy now with a mandate, and no chance to repeal the Climate Change Act. Then its full speed to the bottom, to joust with North Korea for the title of worst place to live on the planet. Welcome to the 15th century everyone, err, everyone..?

36
0
nige.oldfart
nige.oldfart
1 year ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

Just to clarify, would that be the15th century BC?

18
0
Marque1
Marque1
1 year ago
Reply to  nige.oldfart

I am shocked, nay, horrified, I am literally shaking! How dare you mislabel BCE. Fascist swine.

9
0
Nearhorburian
Nearhorburian
1 year ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

Living standards for the majority in the 15th century were the highest until the 19th.

13
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

In the 15th century the Medieval Thunberg’s were shouting “How dare you” and the “Just Stop Horses” people were chucking paint over the Bayeaux Tapestry. Yes back then the Medieval Warm Period had the serfs in a tizzy just like today.

5
0
Boomer Bloke
Boomer Bloke
1 year ago

It looks to me like they are framing it as a timescale issue, as opposed to the actual substance of the ‘net zero’ proposition.

28
0
Nicholas Britton
Nicholas Britton
1 year ago
Reply to  Boomer Bloke

Yes, they are. That way they can avoid having proper informed debates about the climate and climate “science” and just discuss how long to delay the pain

24
0
Monro
Monro
1 year ago

A great chance to save the long suffering taxpayer some money: a two question referendum.

1. Dump Nut Zero
2. Exit from the ECHR

Then home for tea and votes…..

46
-1
Nicholas Britton
Nicholas Britton
1 year ago

Before holding a referendum, all censorship on climate change must be lifted to ensure a full and even-handed debate. The problem is the media, civil service, and many others would struggle to engage in such a debate, or even allow it, because the only “debating skills” they have are hectoring, gaslighting, name-calling, and shrieking abuse.

46
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago
Reply to  Nicholas Britton

You don’t debate tyranny. You enforce it with yet more misinformation and propaganda.

5
0
RW
RW
1 year ago

There’s no point in having a referendum about chasing an impossible goal to try to remedy an imaginary problem with unsuitable means.

44
0
NeilofWatford
NeilofWatford
1 year ago

The essential problem here is greenism is core doctrine for globalists like Hunt and Sunak.
They’ll give you some happy talk but like the rest of the Unaparty, they’re joined at the hip.

Last edited 1 year ago by NeilofWatford
27
0
stewart
stewart
1 year ago

It only makes sense to have a referendum if the fundamental premises of Net Zero are challenged.

We have these very dubious, frankly outlandish premises:

– that humans significantly alter the climate over other factors, like suolar activity, or volcanic activity.
– that rhe climate is changing in a clearly discernable way and has us on a path to catastrophe.
– that carbon dioxide is like some sort of climatic thermostat that allows us to control thte climate.

If we can challenge these ridiculous notions fine. If both camps are just.going to accept these as given and simply argue about the timetable, then what’s the point?

To be honest, I don’t see those on the anti-net zero side questioning the basic premises too much. They look like they are afraid of appearing too radical or unhinged. They seem to question more the damage the policies will do without challenging the need for them.

Last edited 1 year ago by stewart
33
0
RW
RW
1 year ago
Reply to  stewart

In principle, you’re right. But in practice, this is much more complicated than necessary: no amount of CO2 emission reduction in the UK will have a meaningful impact on world-wide CO2 emissions. Trying achieve Net Zero in the UK is certainly going to be very costly to everyone. And there’s nothing to be gained by it: If the world will go under unless mankind becomes Net Zero by 2050, then, it’s doomed. All we can then still do is try to have a good time until then.

14
0
stewart
stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  RW

Yes but even if everyone agreed to reduce CO2 emissions, CO2 isn’t some sort of climate thermostat and we couldn’t regulate the climate even if wanted to and actually we don’t need to.

Why even talk about whether or not we can get everyone to agree? The whole conversation is pointless.

13
0
RW
RW
1 year ago
Reply to  stewart

Debates about first principles tend to prevent stuff from getting done that’s needed in the real-world. In this case, get rid of Net Zero as binding policy committment. The case for getting rid of Net Zero in the UK is simple: It’s guaranteed to be both insanely expensive and completely pointless. So completely pointless, actually, that the conjecture that what the UN really wants is merry looting of our money to help itself and its political pet causes elsewhere seems very realistic to me.

The wider issue of Assuming Nut Zero could be accomplished and could accomplish what it is said to be supposed to accomplish (answer to both questions is no), would there be a reason to try? can be discussed much more leisurely once the UN has been firmly told that it’s not entitled to all our stuff, come what may.

9
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago
Reply to  stewart

Yes but even if one of their moderate computer modelled scenario’s were true, nothing we do here in the UK will have any detectable effect on global climate. ——–So there is really no excuse for this mad rush to Net Zero at astronomical cost and with no idea whatsoever how it could ever be achieved and if the technologies required could even be invented. So why this full steam ahead? ———–Because it isn’t and never was about the climate in the first place. This is the UK and it’s feeble politicians complying with UN agendas with no concern whatsoever for the welfare of their own population. And the fact that we are forcing ourselves in law to do this makes them even bigger imposters than if they had just desired to reduce emissions at a pace that was practical with proper cost/benefit analysis.

10
0
EppingBlogger
EppingBlogger
1 year ago

So they are running scared. The actions of Cameron-Clegg and all Conservative administrations since, and their supine responde to Milliband’s Clime Change Act have come home to roost.

So how do these scared back benchers think it would work? Full drop arms disclosures by HMG of the fatuous basis of their decision to cripple the economy. I don’t think so.

Or do they imagine that between now and the General Election a properly funded campaign can be launched against Net Zero – well that might be possible but enough time is needed to counter the tosh which the political class of all shades have been pushing for decades.

What would be the question?
“Do you agree with clean air”
“Do you think we should look after the world for our children and grand children”
“Is grass green”

Or would it be “Should we cripple the economy to theoretically reduce world temperatures by 1.5 degrees centigrade (2.5 degrees F) in 100 years time”

27
0
Myra
Myra
1 year ago

No please don’t go down that route!
Only if proper debate is allowed, highlighting all, including the unknowns, will this help.
Else it will just be another divisive vote, like Brexit was.

Last edited 1 year ago by Myra
15
0
Jabby Mcstiff
Jabby Mcstiff
1 year ago

The problem is that a referendum, couched in their terms, for one thing would mean utterly nothing given the forces pushing in the opposite direction and you can’t really fight their argument because on a deeper level you will notice that they are shy about mentioning it. There is an implicit understanding between the corporatists/WEF and the people – that we impose this on you and the best thing you can do is keep your mouth shut. That is the subtext behind all of their talk about inclusivity. I am not optimistic by nature but honestly I can see a growing resistance to this tendency even in England. Many people will be homeless by the end of the year because of interest rate rises – those who have mortgages and those who rent property. It is going to get very bad in that regard.It is a terrible thing that it has to come to this.

14
0
sskinner
sskinner
1 year ago

“Put Net Zero to a Referendum…”No! Just stop Net Zero – period.

24
0
wryobserver
wryobserver
1 year ago

There is no point in having a debate on whether or not there should be a referendum. There is point in dissecting the science that had led to Net Zero policies and laws, not least now a climate change declaration has emerged from the swamp. Like others I am convinced that there are other more important drivers of climate changes than CO2 emissions, some of which we can stop (desertification and deforestation) and some we can’t (volcanoes, El Niño). There’s no point worrying about what we can do nothing about. What saddens me also is that when folk argue for a particular course of action they fail to examine the possible downside.

11
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago

I would like Hyena’s to tear the guts out of their prey in a more proportionate and pragmatic manner. Does that sound absurd? ——Yes, and that is because it is totally absurd. Trying to do NET ZERO in a proportionate and pragmatic manner is equally absurd. The people that waved this through parliament with no questions asked have no clue or even concern for the cost of this absurdity (estimated in the trillions) and have not the slightest idea if the technologies required could even be invented. They have forced us in law to do something with no idea how how it could ever be achieved. ——Who in their right mind does such a thing? ———Ideologically motivated Eco Socialists pandering to globalist mandates rather than to their own citizens. They are prepared to punish us all by making us poorer and colder so they can sit at the UN Sustainable Development table and get a slap on the back from the One World Government people who think the west has to be brought down not just a peg or two, but a whole box of pegs. We have apparently used up more than our fair share of the finite fossil fuels in the ground and we must STOP. —Our feeble squirming politicians are happy to oblige.

17
0
John Drewry
John Drewry
1 year ago

Really? What’s the point? The result would only be ignored. You can’t reason with these people. War, war, not jaw, jaw.

5
0
Peter W
Peter W
1 year ago

Signed into law with little discussion of feasibility or necessity. Can just as easily be signed OUT of law.

6
0
Alan
Alan
1 year ago

No, not a referendum. This is a science issue turned into a political issue and it is the scientists the government should be consulting. Not the 97% who rely on government funding and lie to keep it but those genuine scientists who know that man made global warming is nonsense. There is no need for any carbon reduction policies.

6
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

The Sceptic | Episode 46: Ofcom’s Ill-Fated Imperialism, One Year of Two-Tier Keir and Phoney Green Jobs

by Richard Eldred
1 August 2025
3

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Record Number of Over-60s Referred to Prevent Amid Explosion in ‘Extreme Right Wing’ Views, eg Liking The Dambusters

2 August 2025
by Toby Young

News Round-Up

3 August 2025
by Richard Eldred

Devastating Official US Report Lays Bare The Abuses of ‘Settled’ Climate Science And Its Role in Net Zero

3 August 2025
by Chris Morrison

Sex Sells. It Always Has. And the Ad Industry Has Finally Remembered That

2 August 2025
by Lee Taylor
Screenshot

New Coinbase ad About Broken Britain Shows We’ve Become the Laughing Stock of the World

3 August 2025
by Sallust

Record Number of Over-60s Referred to Prevent Amid Explosion in ‘Extreme Right Wing’ Views, eg Liking The Dambusters

85

News Round-Up

19

Labour Targets Anti-Migrant Protesters With Terrorist Tracking Software

16
Screenshot

New Coinbase ad About Broken Britain Shows We’ve Become the Laughing Stock of the World

13

Devastating Official US Report Lays Bare The Abuses of ‘Settled’ Climate Science And Its Role in Net Zero

13

Nappy Pads on Ceiling Sewage Leaks – Did Infection Kill the Letby Babies?

3 August 2025
by Dr David Livermore
Screenshot

New Coinbase ad About Broken Britain Shows We’ve Become the Laughing Stock of the World

3 August 2025
by Sallust

Devastating Official US Report Lays Bare The Abuses of ‘Settled’ Climate Science And Its Role in Net Zero

3 August 2025
by Chris Morrison

In 2020, the Left Told us Rioting Worked. In 2025, They Tell us it Doesn’t. What Changed? The Politics of the Rioters, of Course

3 August 2025
by Steven Tucker

Sex Sells. It Always Has. And the Ad Industry Has Finally Remembered That

2 August 2025
by Lee Taylor

POSTS BY DATE

April 2021
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  
« Mar   May »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

POSTS BY DATE

April 2021
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  
« Mar   May »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Record Number of Over-60s Referred to Prevent Amid Explosion in ‘Extreme Right Wing’ Views, eg Liking The Dambusters

2 August 2025
by Toby Young

News Round-Up

3 August 2025
by Richard Eldred

Devastating Official US Report Lays Bare The Abuses of ‘Settled’ Climate Science And Its Role in Net Zero

3 August 2025
by Chris Morrison

Sex Sells. It Always Has. And the Ad Industry Has Finally Remembered That

2 August 2025
by Lee Taylor
Screenshot

New Coinbase ad About Broken Britain Shows We’ve Become the Laughing Stock of the World

3 August 2025
by Sallust

Record Number of Over-60s Referred to Prevent Amid Explosion in ‘Extreme Right Wing’ Views, eg Liking The Dambusters

85

News Round-Up

19

Labour Targets Anti-Migrant Protesters With Terrorist Tracking Software

16
Screenshot

New Coinbase ad About Broken Britain Shows We’ve Become the Laughing Stock of the World

13

Devastating Official US Report Lays Bare The Abuses of ‘Settled’ Climate Science And Its Role in Net Zero

13

Nappy Pads on Ceiling Sewage Leaks – Did Infection Kill the Letby Babies?

3 August 2025
by Dr David Livermore
Screenshot

New Coinbase ad About Broken Britain Shows We’ve Become the Laughing Stock of the World

3 August 2025
by Sallust

Devastating Official US Report Lays Bare The Abuses of ‘Settled’ Climate Science And Its Role in Net Zero

3 August 2025
by Chris Morrison

In 2020, the Left Told us Rioting Worked. In 2025, They Tell us it Doesn’t. What Changed? The Politics of the Rioters, of Course

3 August 2025
by Steven Tucker

Sex Sells. It Always Has. And the Ad Industry Has Finally Remembered That

2 August 2025
by Lee Taylor

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences