The GSK Covid Vaccine: Will We Be Safe?

Media reports suggest GSK, the British based pharmaceutical giant, are close to producing 1 billion doses of a coronavirus vaccine booster in 2021. Little is known about the ingredients of the vaccine, at least in the mainstream media.

GSK have merged with the French multinational pharmaceutical company, Sanofi.

Between them, GSK and Sanofi have paid out $5,063,939,512 in violation fines, GSK paying $4,422,266,058 (billion) whilst Sanofi come in at $641,673,454 (million)

GSK, who rolled out the Pandemrix vaccine for the last global pandemic, are set to make a pretty penny if they and Sanofi can get the coronavirus vaccine booster past the regulators - this process has been made easier for them due to global drug regulators giving drug companies a rapid path by allowing them to bypass animal testing.

Animal tests are a critical step in vaccine and drug development. Normally, a new vaccine can take anything between 5 to 20 years to develop before it can be made available to the public. Animal tests are carried out to determine safety and efficacy at preventing the disease in question. Regulators, such as the MHRA in the UK and the FDA in the US, usually require that a manufacturer shows a product is safe in animals before it goes into people. 

This from the European Medicines Agency:

"The regulatory workshop was held virtually on 18 March 2020 in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It brought together delegates from 17 different countries, representing more than 20 medicines regulatory authorities globally, as well as experts from the World Health Organization and the European Commission, to share their views on the development of vaccines against COVID-19. The meeting was co-chaired by EMA and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."

The summary report of that meeting can be found here.

Pandemrix: The Swine Flu Vaccine

Research published in the BMJ in 2013 suggested a possible link between the swine flu vaccine given to children in the UK and Europe during the epidemic in 2009 and 2010 and a rare condition called narcolepsy, which causes people to fall asleep suddenly without any warning and at any time of the day.

A further report, also published in the BMJ in 2018, asked the question, 'Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs?'

In 2019, an Irish woman, Aoife Bennett, 27, who received the Pandemrix vaccine in school in 2009 as part of a state campaign against swine flu. sued the government after developing narcolepsy shortly after receiving GSK's Pandemrix. The case was settled for an undisclosed amount of compensation to the victim.

This from The Guardian:

"Bennett told RTE on Wednesday that she was active and athletic until being vaccinated in December 2009. About two weeks later the side-effects began, she said. “Things changed very drastically.” She felt “like a sloth” and became fatigued, disoriented and prone to collapse.

"She expressed dismay that it took seven years of legal proceedings to obtain compensation.

"The defendants in the case were GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, the health service executive, the minister for health and the health products regulatory authority, formerly the Irish medicines board."

Further, in 2017, the UK high court rejected a British government appeal to withhold payments to dozens of British children who developed the sleeping disorder after swine flu vaccines. Six million people in Britain, and more across Europe, were given the Pandemrix vaccine made by GlaxoSmithKline during the 2009-10 swine flu pandemic, but the jab was withdrawn after doctors noticed a sharp rise in narcolepsy among those receiving it.

It all seems pretty clear then that GSK's Pandemrix vaccine caused narcolepsy in some who were administered it. A way to keep such news at bay is to make settlements with those who file lawsuits.

When we look into the Swine Flu pandemic, we can see similarities into what is panning out today in 2020. The same questions should be asked about the safety of any potential Covid-19 vaccine and we shouldn't have to wait until people suffer a severe adverse reaction to it as we did with the GSK's swine flu vaccine.

Incidentally, what do GSK have to say about their product, Pandemrix, causing narcolepsy? Well, only yesterday, in efforts to convince the public that there will be no problem with their new vaccine for Covid, they claimed its previous flu pandemic vaccine, (Pandemrix) which used some of the same ingredients as Covid-19 vaccines currently under development, was not linked to a rise in cases of the sleep disorder narcolepsy. 

This from RTE:

"A spokesman for GSK said the "science has moved on" since concerns were raised about links between narcolepsy and its H1N1 vaccine, called Pandemrix, which was developed during the flu pandemic 10 years ago. 

"He said evidence now suggests the link is to the H1N1 flu virus itself, not the vaccine. 

"In a statement to Reuters, the company said available scientific data suggest that "the rare occurrence of narcolepsy during the 2009/10 flu pandemic was triggered by the body confusing a protein in the wild type H1N1 flu virus with a human protein relevant in regulating the sleep cycle." 

In 2010, The Daily Mail, a British newspaper, reported on how Drug firms cashed in on scare over swine flu. Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, who at the time was head of health at the Council of Europe, branded the swine flu pandemic as 'one of the greatest medical scandals of the century.'

The 2010 Daily Mail article, which is like a version of Groundhog day playing out, also highlights how Sir Roy Anderson, a scientist who advised the UK Government on swine flu outbreak, held  a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline.

One of the current Covid scientific advisers to the UK government, Patrick Vallance, is the former head of GlaxoSmithKline's vaccine division.

Déjà vu anyone?

Finally, although I cannot prove the authenticity of the claims in  a video that was recently uploaded to YouTube,  an independent journalist claims he has recently been contacted by a GSK whistleblower who  told him vaccines trialled out on women contained an antigen that was shown to cause a 97% increase in infertility. The antigen also allegedly makes men sterile.

The video has since been removed by YouTube but can still be accessed here.

Bob Fiddaman

The Lancet Publishes Scaremongering 'Study' Amid Covid19 Crisis

Published: April 15, 2020
Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic

The Lancet

I've read it.

It's based around one word.

Here are my thoughts.

What the published authors claim:

We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research.

What this blog has found:

Mental health 'scientists' claim:

"As scientists continue to investigate the brains of people who have mental illnesses, they are learning that mental illness is associated with changes in the brain's structure, chemistry, and function and that mental illness does indeed have a biological basis." (1)

This claim has been debunked many times by professionals in the field. See here.

What the published authors claim:

"We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high-level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time."

What this blog has found:

Prediction published March 30, 2020 (2 weeks prior to the Lancet paper being published)

It will be claimed that many have detachment-type disorders and new phobias. Mourning the loss of loved ones will continue to be deemed as a mental disorder if that mourning process goes beyond two weeks. Psychiatric 'medication' prescriptions will increase as will cases of autoimmune diseases, ironically caused by some of 'medications' prescribed. (2)

What the published authors claim:

"Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required."

What this blog has found:

A distinction must be made here between what a psychiatrist does and what a neurologist does.

A psychiatrist claims to focus on and treat symptoms originating in the brain that lead to abnormal voluntary functions, i.e; human behaviours, whereas neurologists focus on and treat symptoms originating in the brain that produce abnormal involuntary functions.

Confused? I was at first until I looked closer.

One treats symptoms that "lead" to abnormal voluntary functions whilst the other treats symptoms that "produce" abnormal involuntary functions.

So, a psychiatrist treats something that isn't fully manifested whereas neurologists treat something that has manifested. They do this by using technology, usually in the form of Computed tomography (CT) or computer-assisted tomography (CAT) scans, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), electroencephalography (EEG), nerve conduction studies and electromyography (NCS/EMG), and lumbar puncture (LP) for cerebral spinal fluid analysis.

Most psychiatrists use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) to diagnose mental health disorders. (3)

The DSM is a manual whereby 'mental health diseases' are voted on by panel members. No technology, such as those used by neurologists, are ever used.

What the published authors claim:

"Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, might infect the brain or trigger immune responses that have additional adverse effects on brain function and mental health in patients with COVID-19."

What this blog has found:

The above looks impressive until you read that they had to add one word. If you blink you'll miss it. It's a word often used in the field of psychiatry and basically means one of two things - [1] It does [2] It doesn't. It covers both bases but only ever talks about one of them.

The word in the above sentence you are looking for is "might."

The published Lancet article hinges on this one little word, a word that sees authors push for more funding. It's a bit like you or I going to the bank for a loan and telling the bank manager that we wish to borrow money for an investment that may or may not (might) bear some fruit.

The common theme running throughout the Lancet paper seems evident, to me at least.

Imagine, if you will, the scene from Oliver Twist. You all know the one, right?

'Please Sir, I want some more'
(Lancet references to funding)

Like all good articles in the media do, they start off with the main message and finish reiterating that message. This Lancet publication is no different.

"New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure."

"Research funders and researchers must deploy resources to understand the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of the COVID-19 pandemic."

"We propose a framework for the prioritisation and coordination of essential, policy-relevant psychological, social, and neuroscientific research, to ensure that any investment is efficiently targeted to the crucial mental health science questions as the pandemic unfolds."

"Given the need to develop the research priorities rapidly to inform immediate funding priorities."

(Final paragraph) "New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading neuroscience and mental health research infrastructure. The UK must connect with international funders and researchers to support a global response to the mental health and neurological challenges of this pandemic."

If the begging bowl references don't alarm you then the published piece, you'll find, is littered with words and phrases that are designed to scaremonger, more so than the media are doing with reference to Covid19.

It's quite shocking to see some of the tactics used in this paper based on something that may or may not ever happen (might)

Here's just a small example of scare tactics used by the authors:

"The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative."

"An immediate priority."

"There is an urgent need."

"Must deploy resources."

"The research community must act rapidly."

"Growing threats to mental health."

"Clear immediate priorities."

"Need to be repeated more rigorously."

"A risk that prevalence of clinically relevant numbers of people with anxiety, depression, and engaging in harmful behaviours (such as suicide and self-harm) will increase."

"The potential fallout of an economic downturn on mental health is likely to be profound."

"A major adverse consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to be increased social isolation and loneliness (as reflected in our surveys), which are strongly associated with anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide attempts across the lifespan."

"The immediate research priorities are to monitor and report rates of anxiety, depression, self-harm, suicide, and other mental health issues both to understand mechanisms and crucially to inform interventions."

"Data will be vital to determine causal mechanisms associated with poor mental health."

"The digital response is crucial."

"Paramount importance."

Now, if you, like me, have received criticism on Twitter from members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists for raising awareness about the "interventions" they speak of in this Lancet paper, you'll understand why I'm bringing all of the above to the attention of my readers.

This paper is designed to grab funding. Unlike poor young Oliver Twist, they haven't even said, "please."

The covid crisis has been an eye-opener for someone like me. I am fascinated by people-watching. I tend to watch a lot before engaging, I like to weigh up a person. There have been many media reports of people cashing-in during this crisis, you know, local shopkeepers hiking the prices of toilet paper and hand sanitizer. Many people who are ignoring government guidelines are also in the news.

What I've seen from the mental health field is no better than those selfish idiots and greedy shopkeepers as they push their agendas that covid can cause mental health problems. Nope, it will just cause behavioural problems as people adjust to their new normal. It's not a brain disorder nor will it manifest into one. Mental Health big-wigs have seized this opportunity with both hands, hence the need for them to create a problem that isn't there and then try to convince people that it may happen and to tackle it they need funding.

Oliver only wanted more porridge because he was hungry. Mental Health, it appears, want more, much more, to feed their egotistical appetites.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for sticking someone under a scanner to determine if their brain is or isn't working properly, I just don't think one can determine a brain default by box-checking a guide that was voted on by a bunch of white-coated men who "might" have just been influenced by drug company money.

Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science can be read here.

Only one of the authors (panel members), Prof Clive Ballard, PhD, reports grants and personal fees ~  from Acadia and Lundbeck; personal fees from Roche, Otsuka, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AARP, and Exciva; and grants from Synexus

Bob Fiddaman

(1) NIH Curriculum Supplement Series 2007

(2) Mother Nature (Mother Earth) and the Invaluable Lesson

(3) How to Diagnose a Mental Health Disorder

"Your Drugs May Pose A Greater Risk Than Your Covid"

Fresh off the press. Such an important video. This interview is part of the #COVID19Chronicles.

Please share far and wide. We owe it to ourselves and our loved ones.

This video struck a chord with me as I posed the following question on Twitter last week, a question that we should, I feel, all be asking.

The video, below, is an interview between journalist, Frank Barat, and Dr David Healy.

Healy's words resonate and make you wonder if this is another reason why the coronavirus fatalities in the elderly are high. Maybe this is something scientists need to be looking into as it may give them insight as to why certain people get severe cases of the Covid19 virus compared to others.

Polypharmacy 
Polypharmacy is the concurrent use of multiple medications by a patient. Polypharmacy is most common in the elderly, affecting about 40% of older adults living in their own homes. ... Definitions have ranged from two medications at a time to 18, or to more medications than clinically necessary.

"A lot of these drugs, from antidepressants to pain killers to all sorts of other drugs, may compromise our immune system to make us more vulnerable to catching Covid and the other thing they can do is they can compromise the body's ability to fight back if we get Covid making us more likely to get pneumonia. When you look at the people who seem to be dying it's older people and particularly people who are in residential homes who are on a whole lot of drugs, sometimes it seems just to keep them quiet rather than treat an illness." ~ Dr David Healy, psychiatrist, psychopharmacologist, scientist, and author

Bob Fiddaman

Medications compromising Covid Infections

Mother Nature (Mother Earth) and the Invaluable Lesson

Mother Nature (sometimes referred to as Mother Earth) has been coughing for years, she needed some respite. She's also witnessed how we have been treating her domain and her creatures of all shapes and sizes. She needed something to stop the pollution, to stop the hunting, to stop the ignorance and selfishness, to stop the fighting. This invisible entity is making us all go back to school, she is teaching us the basics again because we have all forgotten

Animals have had to change their habits. Think about the wild animals that come into towns and cities in search of food that we, as humans, discard in an almost blase fashion. Rats, foxes in the UK, coyotes, bears in Canada and the US have had very little to scavenge during the lockdown. Birds have less bread to eat as it has, overnight it seems, become a currency. Mosquitos have had less blood to drink too. With less fishing, those gilled wonders will multiply, almost like a preparation for a fish feast for us all when this crisis has subsided. Mother Nature's offering to us by way of an apology for having to make us sit up and take notice.

She has a unique way of highlighting our failings, a unique way of showing us that those in charge really shouldn't be in charge at all.

She will continue to teach us lessons. Some we will listen to, others we won't, so she will strike again when the time is ready.

Some, mistakingly, refer to her as God.

The following are just some thoughts of mine, some have already been mentioned as possible outcomes but I've not let any other predictions in the way of my own thinking here. As we learn to adapt there will be yet more unscrupulous behaviour at work. The unscrupulous will never change, they can only see dollar signs.

These are just thoughts, they are not some sort of third eye predictions.


Food
Expect more people to eat less meat as we learn more about animal viruses and how they have always existed, also how they can, in the blink of an eye, be passed onto humans. This will have an economical effect on farmers etc

Travel by air
 ~ A stamp in your passport that will confirm that you have had the coronavirus and therefore unlikely to get it again.
~ A stamp in your passport that confirms you have been immunised against the coronavirus with a vaccine. (see vaccines)

Travel, as we know it, has changed forever. Expect longer queues at airports and a huge increase in airfares. Long term, economy travel will probably become a thing of the past as more and more distance between humans is requested, particularly if this virus, or another strain of it, hits us again. Less travel = less pollution

Cruise Ships
May become a thing of the past unless they can figure out why colds, flu-type viruses spread so quickly. Less traffic in our oceans = less polluted waters.

Vaccines
A vaccine will be rushed through and will be available before we know it. The safety of the vaccine will be touted as being safe in small clinical trials with no obvious side effects. The trials will probably run for 6-12 weeks. No raw data will be offered up by drug companies for scrutiny. The vaccine manufacturer/s will be offered indemnity, meaning no lawsuits against them will be allowed should the vaccines cause injury or death to those taking them. The ball has already started rolling on this.

Mental Health
New disorders or sub-types will be created. It will be claimed that many have detachment-type disorders and new phobias. Mourning the loss of loved ones will continue to be deemed as a mental disorder if that mourning process goes beyond two weeks. Psychiatric 'medication' prescriptions will increase as will cases of autoimmune diseases, ironically caused by some of 'medications' prescribed.
Expect a huge promotional push in the field of mental health - we've already seen it during the corona crisis and I expect it to increase after the 'curve' has flattened.

Suicide
Suicide figures will rise and be blamed on the aftermath of the coronavirus. Any suggestion that the increase in suicides is a result of psychiatric 'medications' will be dismissed - this has been the normal response by 'medical experts' for the past 40 years or so.

Drug Companies
New drugs to prevent any corona-type virus will be created and marketed, they will claim to help slow the process of spreading a virus. Millions will be spent on a huge scaremongering campaign that will result in more people taking substances that they don't really need to take. Cold remedies will be modified, claims of 'Super Extra Strength' versions of existing cold remedies will be heavily promoted.

Taxes/Pensions
Expect increases in taxes and expect pension saving schemes to be hard hit too. The governments around the world will need to claw back money they have spent/lost during the corona crisis.

Smoking/Vaping
Expect a worldwide ban 10 or 20 years from now. Probably a good thing but it will mean higher taxes on foodstuffs, electrical goods etc. Those suffering nicotine withdrawal will be offered patches or smoking cessation drugs, eg Champix (varenicline) and/or Zyban (bupropion), two drugs associated with suicidal thinking, the latter being an antidepressant.


Bob Fiddaman

Is an Influential Australian Psychiatrist Spreading Fear?

First off, the coronavirus doesn't cause any psychiatric 'disorders'. Let's be abundantly clear about that.

I'm astonished to see Australia's leading brain pellet spokesperson Patrick McGorry (above), spreading fear on Twitter.

It appears McGorry took umbrage to a letter (below) sent into The Guardian from Dr Lucy Johnstone. The letter from Johntsone was in response to Paul Daley’s article (We face a pandemic of mental health disorders, 24 March)

McGorry, in a rather contradictory fashion, tweeted the following in response:

If, according to McGorry, fear is "100% absolutely appropriate" why does he then add his own mix of fear with, "...severe stress, economic collapse & multiple losses in a global disaster will lead to a major increase in need for MH care..."?

It seems that in the space of just two weeks psychiatrists, such as McGorry, have become expert virologists and economists overnight. They are jumping into a situation and trying to make it appear as though they have an important role in what's going on or what may happen as a result of this global pandemic.

The truth of the matter is, they don't have a clue about what is going on, they only think they do. Yes, people are fearful, I am myself, as are many of my family and friends, in fact, every time I clear my throat mild panic sets in but do we really need the likes of McGorry spreading more unnecessary fear with his crystal ball predictions? All of his claims are natural responses to situations, they are not mental disorders, therefore they should never be treated as such. A pill won't get you a job nor will it make the economy look better either.

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Let's just look at the current way psychiatrists diagnose Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)

To be diagnosed with OCD, you must have obsessions:

 - worry that you will become sick or “contaminated”
 - a belief that you or someone you love is in danger 
- Sometimes the link between the compulsion and the obsession is clear, like someone who washes their hands repeatedly to fight germs or contamination.

Now, here's some food for thought.

What if residents of Wuhan, where the coronavirus purportedly originated from, had been 'obsessive' about washing their hands repeatedly to fight germs or contamination, would we still have seen such a global spread?

What if those same residents wanted to obsess about hygiene but were fearful to do so because they didn't want to be labelled by psychiatrists as having OCD?

As I understand it psychiatry views a person who washes their hands repeatedly to fight germs or contamination as possibly having a brain disorder, or the makings of one but what would an independent psychiatrist think of McGorry's latest contradictory rant on Twitter?

McGorry is famous for his Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre [EPPIC]. Over 50% of psychiatrists who took a poll believed that EPPIC put young people at risk of being over-medicated.

McGorry, with the financial assistance of Seroquel manufacturer Astra Zeneca, also wanted to carry out a clinical trial [of sorts] with children, among others, who had not yet been diagnosed with a psychotic illness. In other words, he wanted, it appears, to trial out Seroquel, a powerful antipsychotic, on subjects who, for all intents and purposes, had nothing wrong with them.

Psychiatrists, psychologists and researchers from all over the world lodged a complaint when they heard of the planned trial.

McGorry pulled the trial and now denies that the complaint had anything to do with his decision.

It begs the question of who has the obsessions here, is it the people who wish to make their own choices or the people who constantly push their choices on others?

McGorry is, in essence, fearmongering. It's almost like he and many other Twitter and media psychiatrists are experiencing schadenfreude, a pleasure that one derives from another person's misfortune.

In any event, the way we view the world is likely to have some drastic changes after all this blows over ~ leaves me wondering if the field psychiatry is going to move the goalposts on their criteria for OCD - if they do then it will be an admission of 'we got it wrong' - a hidden admission at that as they rarely apologise for getting things wrong. If they don't change the criteria then they are going to look rather stupid...not for the first time.

We, as a race, will be obsessively washing our hands for years to come.

Leave the medicine to the real doctors and the choice of wanting to be as obsessive as we want about our own hygiene, please Paddy!


Bob Fiddaman

You can read more about Paddy McGorry here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

Coronavirus: Putting Things Into Perspective

Worrying times are upon us all as we batten down the hatches and self-isolate to prevent catching this worldwide virus that, for most, didn't seem troubling when news first broke.

Images of Wuhan, China, where the virus originated, were spread across the internet and global news channels. It, for most, was their problem and not ours ~ that, however, has changed drastically over the past few weeks/months as the virus has spread globally and the media have ramped up stories that sell - namely death.

As I write this, there are a confirmed 277,169 worldwide cases, 11,431 of those have resulted in fatalities. The current estimated population of the world is 7.7 billion.

The figures above will definitely rise and, more importantly, we will eventually see a decline just as they are in Wuhan. For the third day running Wuhan are reporting no new cases. South Korea has also seen a sharp drop in new cases, whilst in Hokkaido, Japan’s second-largest island and which has the most number of cases of COVID-19, finally lifted its State of Emergency yesterday.

Britan and the US are weeks behind these countries in terms of the actual slowing down of the spread. Some may argue that we've been slow out of the blocks to curb the spread and because of this we may face more cases per head then the above-mentioned countries.

Panama, where I live most of the year, has reported just one death out of 198 cases, 7 of which are in critical condition. Panama has a population of just under 4 million. The Panamanian authorities acted swiftly after the one death that has occurred. They closed down all the schools and banned flights from Europe and have now imposed a curfew on residents, also a total booze ban, including bars and supermarkets. The booze ban is a good idea because this prevents people from gathering at one another's houses to 'party'.

Panama has acted quickly.

Unfortunately, for me at least, I fear it may be quite a while before I am allowed entry into this beautiful country and even more beautiful populace. My long-time partner remains there and it's heartbreaking for both of us as we now contemplate spending an infinite amount of time apart. (I came back to the UK in February)

It's important that we all keep our eyes on the latest updates. It's important that we adhere to what the governments and medical experts are recommending.

On the flip-side of the coin, it's important that we don't over-obsess about what the media and social media are telling us  ~ much of it is recycled news of doom and gloom and this puts fear into most of us. Be cautious but don't be fearful. Fear spreads quicker than any virus and examples of this can be seen by supermarket shelves being stripped of their goods almost as soon as they are filled.

If one good has come out of this pandemic it's been an eye-opener of how we, as humans, behave when the chips are down. We seem to lose the power to empathise and our own survival instinct becomes more important than anyone else. We are in this together, folks, we will beat this. Remain human. Remain humane.

For Krissy

"I find I’m so excited, I can barely sit still or hold a thought in my head. I think it the excitement only a free man can feel, a free man at the start of a long journey whose conclusion is uncertain. I hope I can make it across the border. I hope to see my friend and shake his hand. I hope the Pacific is as blue as it has been in my dreams. I hope." ~ Red, Shawshank Redemption

Bob Fiddaman