Wednesday, July 28, 2021

人类首次登月的收藏资料 (Nostalgic Materials Related To First Mankind Landing On Moon)

我年轻时对火箭和太探险讯息和图片深感兴趣1969年7月21日美国阿波罗11号登月时,我正值14岁就读初中二,当时大马发生“513事件”和戒严结束不久。以下是一些我至今收藏了52年的杂志(美国出版的中文刊物今日世界)和《南洋商报》(当时每份定价20仙)及其他剪报资料,回味无穷!

I was very interested in information and pictures relating to rockets and space expeditions when I was young. When USA’s Apollo 11 landed on moon on July 21, 1969, I was 14 years old studying in Junior Middle 2, and it was not long after the “May 13 incident”and end of curfew in Malaysia. Below are selected materials I have kept for 52 years till now taken from a then USA-published Chinese magazine “The World Today”, Nanyang Siang Pau and etc. Very nostalgic to me! 

摘自"今日世界"

南洋商报 17/07/1969
南洋商报 22/07/1969
南洋商报 22/07/1969
摘自"今日世界"

Sunday, July 25, 2021

新中国开国元勋纪念章

我在2016年10月25日旅游中国上海朱家角古镇时,买了以下三册纪念徽章,收藏至今:

1. 跨世纪伟人毛泽东

2. 红太阳纪念章

3. 共和国将帅

 

跨世纪伟人毛泽东

包括: 毛主席1921年在上海,1921年在嘉兴,1925年在广州,1936年在陕北,1945年在延安,1949年10月1日在开国大典,1949年视察黄河,1949年9月19日在北平天坛,1953年7月视察东海舰队,1955年中共全国代表大会,1959年与首都军民欢度建国十周年,1960年在中南海,1961年在庐山,1965年在井冈山等24枚纪念章 


红太阳纪念章

1893年至1949年战争年代的毛泽东 - 10枚纪念章

1949年至1976年新中国成立后的毛泽东 - 10枚纪念章


共和国将帅

1.  新中国历史上的十大元帅

(参考:  http://www.agangww.com/?p=1317)


十大元帅按照年龄排名:

朱德(1886)、刘伯承(1892)、贺龙(1896)、叶剑英(1897)、彭德怀(1898)、聂荣臻(1899)、陈毅(1901)、徐向前(1901)、罗荣桓(1902)、林彪(1907)。 

十大元帅是中国人民解放军的杰出领导人。 他们英勇加冕三军,征战沙场,能在百万大军中先取敌军;他们足智多谋,可以消灭千里之外的敌人。 他们胸中有百万兵士,如猛虎吞千里。他们在反对外国侵略和民族解放的斗争中作出了巨大贡献;在和平时期,他们致力于国防建设,为人民解放军的发展和壮大而努力,这是人们所怀念的。 

有人说,没有十大元帅,中国革命的光荣进程一定会失去光彩,黯然失色很多。正是有了他们,中国革命的历史才如此辉煌,中国人民解放军才是不可战胜的、强大的。十大元帅是战无不胜、攻无不克的军队指挥官

摘自网站

2. 新中国历史上的十大将军

(参考:  https://baike.sogou.com/v198479.htm)

十大将军按照年龄排名:

张云逸(1892)、徐海东(1900)、黄克诚(1902)、肖劲光(1903)、陈赓(1903)、王树声(1905)、罗瑞卿(1906)、谭政(1906)、粟裕(1907)、许光达(1908)。

中华人民共和国十大将军一般指中国人民解放军大将,是中国人民解放军历史上的军衔之一。

1955年9月,国务院总理周恩来发布命令,授予粟裕、黄克诚、谭政、肖劲光、王树声、陈赓、罗瑞卿、许光达、徐海东、张云逸10人中国人民解放军大将军衔。

1965年军衔制被取消。1988年恢复军衔制后,中国人民解放军没有再设大将军衔。

摘自网站

Tuesday, July 20, 2021

Traditional Chinese Medicine in Malaysia

The blogger’s note: Dr. JB Lim has recently shared with his chat group friends his past experience in the practice of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in Malaysia and other subjects.

Date posted: 18/07/2021 @ 9:07 pm


I was tasked to learn TCM at the Traditional Chinese Medical Institute in 2, Jalan Hang Jebat in Kuala Lumpur in the 1987 when I served as one of the members in the very high-powered Joint WHO-MOH-IMR Expert Technical Committee. 

I went there officially after MOH wrote them a letter explaining my presence and my purpose there. I was there for 6 months after work from 7 to 11 pm every night learning from them as I needed to write out a report on their training, acceptability by the public, efficacy, safety the clinical procedures they use.

The report was needed for discussions on the legal, administrative, logistics aspects and problems of admitting them into government hospitals years later. 

I was the only Chinese member in that Committee. That was why they needed to send me there. Fortunately the TCM doctors there can speak English very well and we could converse with each other easily. 

Suddenly I found myself extremely "popular and very acceptable" to them and to members of other associations including their Federation dealing with medicinal herbs because they knew I was going to be the only and the key person that was going to make a difference to their practice.

The official report I submitted was over 250 pages (as good as a PhD thesis) with another summary of 30 pages for the MOH policy makers and Expert Technical Committee to consider and decide whether or not to accept and recognize them. 

Even after having a short stint learning from them, initially their theory and practice was alien to my medical and scientific background, I am still far from being qualified as a TCM doctor.

I served in that Committee till I retired in 1994 and some others took over. 

It was meetings after meetings non stop almost every week as we needed to look at so many issues, such as their training, qualifications, safety, clinical efficacy, administrative and legal aspects, its acceptance by the people (surprisingly the clinic was extremely crowded mainly by Chinese but also by lots of Malays and Indians).

I like to go there every night due to the fragrance and aroma of herbal medicines emanating in the air in their entire clinic. 

It was so unlike the odourless synthetic drugs in a hospital pharmacy. Nothing nice to smell in an allopathic hospital pharmacy.

It was only about 6 years after I retired, the government on recommendation by WHO officially based on my report recognized TCM on par with conventional medicine to be incorporated into the mainstream National Health Care System. 

Initially they incorporated TCM and other complementary medical systems in just 3 government hospitals as an experimental pilot project, but now they are available in over 20 government hospitals where the public can go for TCM treatment for certain cases through referrals. 

Following their recognition at least 6 private universities here have now started to offer a 4 or 5 years structured course in TCM leading to an Honours Bachelor's degree. It is okay. They are legitimately qualified as they too have to learn the basic medical sciences like anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pathology, pharmacology and an additional pharmacognosy too in their first two years before their clinical years just like in conventional allopathic medicine except they take different therapeutic approaches in their clinical years.

When i had clinic sessions with them, they impressed me very much with the way they handled acupuncture so aspectically using gloves, face mask and disposal sterilised needles or personal needles that needed to be passed through a flame to sterile them first.

It was very surgical they handled it and it was completely anesthesia (no pain) despite so many needles being inserted at specific locations without any local anesthetic. 

When i was in the Committee, WHO Consultant who sat there told us in China TCM is a 5 year university course where students needed to learn at least 30% of conventional allopathic medicine, and students in conventional medicine needed to learn at least 30% of Traditional Chinese Medicine for them to integrate into their health care system which WHO told us was the world best. 

In the final examination in China both types of medical students must answer 30% of the questions taken from each of the allopathic and TCM systems, and when they work together side by side in hospitals they refer to each other which system is best for certain cases. 

They exchanged clinical notes during their training and they understood each other’s technical language as they needed to learn 30% of each syllabus.

I think they are also following this approach in selected Malaysian government hospitals currently and I was told the government has sent a lot of our doctors to China for training for integration. 

A few private hospitals in Malaysia are now also offering TCM after the official recognition of TCM and all the Western complementary and alternative systems of medicine to be practised in this country.

But all must be registered by their respective Medical Councils like MMC for allopathic medicine.

Now the TCM physicians even have their own Chinese Medical Association i.e. MCMA, just like MMA after their recognition by an Act of Parliament in 2000. 

I am happy for them though it was many years of hard work for me sitting in that very difficult but the highest powered Expert Technical Committee from 1987 till1994. 

I have lots of very invaluable experiences learning a lot of new knowledge, working both as a nutritionist and as a senior medical researcher in other fields in such a glamourous institute as the IMR from 1969 till 1994, exactly 25 years, and now also exactly 25 years after retirement.


Date posted: 18/07/2021 @ 10:51 pm

(In response to a friend’s question whether TCM can do open heart surgery)

Yes they do in China. 

They even performed open heart surgery using acupuncture since US President Nixons time when he visited China in the 1960s.

They use acupuncture instead of GA and heart-lung perfusion machines on fully conscious patients together with conventional surgeons operating. 

However, the open heart surgery has its limitations as the patient needed to cooporate as they are fully conscious during the entire surgery by breathing on their own without endotracheal intubation requiring oxygen and anaesthestic. 

For that the patients need two weeks training prior to surgery. 

But the advantage is completely no pain, fully awake and know what's going on and absolutely no adverse sides effects of drugs and post surgical anaesthesia. 

Some years ago, I read in the Star or NST a few operations here in this country were done using acupuncture instead of GA with the help of TCM doctors from China. 

-----------------------------------

Date: 18/07/2021 @ 11.45pm

These days nobody refers conventional allopathic medicine as "western medicine" anymore because there are a lot of other alternative systems of medicines like homoeopathic medicine, naturopathic medicine, hypnotherapy and even western botanical medicines that are originated from the west and belong to the west because the Westerners themselves now are very disgruntled with their own "western medicine" and looking into the east like China instead. 

Now we call normal hospital medicine as conventional or mainstream medicine. 

All the other systems of medicine are either native or traditional medicine or western alternative medicine. 

That was the term we used in our Technical Committee and is now also used by the government and MOH. 

But now it is more suitable to use the term complementary medicine to mean they complement the deficiencies and weakness of each system rather than alternative medicine which is less used now because the word "alternative" means 'either this or that' , that would amount to accepting the weakness of either one.

So to complement each other’s strengths and weakness in health care is far better than single stand alone system. 

Now in the west they have adopted an even better system by integrating the best therapeutic modality taken from each system and call it "integrative medicine". 

I recently bought an awesome book on Integrative Medicine containing over 1,500 pages contributed by over 180 medical specialists and doctors around the world who have both MDs and PhDs combined in their qualifications to write forcefully. 

It was an awesome book the way they described how medicine need to be integrated using the best of each system like in China where they combined TCM with drug based medicine. 

--------------------------------------

Date: 19/07 @12:01 am

Don't get me wrong. 

Conventional medicine is still very good with emergency and critically ill patients that require intensive support with fast acting drugs and life support machines. 

No other systems of medicine can beat that. I am with them and support them as I was involved in medical emergency myself. 

But we fare very poorly with chronic conditions which is best managed by other medical systems that look at the whole picture more holistically as a person with a mind and soul and not some kind of biochemical machine that only needs to be treated by Big Pharma drugs to alter or divert the continuous chemical pathology. 

---------------------------------------------

Date: 19/07/2021 @ 2:03am

I remember Dr Cavalli the Italian Psychiatrist who was sent from Italy as a Consultant to WHO, another WHO Consultant from Sweden and another WHO Regional Consultant from Manila sitting along with other Senior Directors from MOH in that Expert Technical Committee together with my boss and myself from IMR.

Dr Cavalli's office room was in IMR itself diagonally opposite mine but two rooms away. He was the person who encouraged me to do my PhD.

Directly opposite my room was our IMR clinic meant only for our IMR staff instead of them going to GH next door.

That was of course not the only technical committee I was privileged to sit in but was the most powerful one that was going to make that crucial decision whether or not to recognize TCM and other systems of medicine integrated into our mainstream health care system.

Years earlier besides research work which was more academic and scientific in nature, technical committees are far more powerful in that they are the decision and policy makers.

In the earlier years I also sat in other committees, one of which was I represented MOH in the SIRIM Technical Committees on standardization and quality control of food, biological and pharmaceutical products manufactured and imported by Malaysia.

I too served in the SIRIM Technical Committees on various products for about 10 or 12 years and I used to go to SIRIM HQ in Shah Alam every month, often bringing back samples to IMR for analysis and reporting back the results of the analysis to them at the next meeting a month later.

Those were the years I now fondly remember.

I made only part use of all my various types of university education in India, in the UK and at MIT.

-------------------------------------

Date: 19/07/2021 @ 5:52 am

A few years past midway into the Expert Technical Committee, MOH and IMR held a two-day national conference on traditional medicine in one of the largest auditorium of the IMR. 

It was completely packed with so many sitting on the steps on both sides and in the middle. 

All were participants or observers representing the various systems of medicine in the country including specialist doctors representing the MMA, MMC and those from University Hospital, University of Malaya and some from the Faculty of Medicine, UKM and from KL General Hospital next door. 

They all represented papers on their various systems of medicine. 

I presented a paper on TCM on behalf of the Chinese Physicians Association of Malaysia as the conference was in English. 

--------------------------------------

Dr. JB Lim’s Economic Contribution in Clinical Research of Palm Oils

Date: 19/07/2021 @ 8:36 am

Another major contribution in medical research I was assigned by the Director of the IMR in the middle of doing my PhD was for me to lead a team of doctors and scientists mainly from the Haemotogical Division at IMR to carry out a clinical trial on the health benefits of our Malaysian Palm Oil against the very powerful lobbying by the American Soyabean Association against our palm oil. 

We were losing hundreds of billions of Ringgits ever year in the sales of palm oil overseas against the extremely powerful American lobbying against our palm oil. 

So i was assigned with a RM10 million project funded by the former Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia (PORIM) to tackle this massive problem. 

It was a mountainous task for me against the very powerful Americans. It was a task much harder for me to tackle than doing my PhD. 

It took us nearly 3 years to plan how to tackle this. I told my Director it was too difficult for me to fight against the powerful scientists in America. 

So he assigned me initially with over 30 other specialist clinicians, scientists, pharmacologists among others from outside to assist me.

After countless technical meetings on the design of the study together with a bio-statistician that must be atom bomb proof, we then recruited in 2 dieticians from outside to join in. 

Finally there were only 6 of us left after so much 'quarrelling' among the 30 researchers in the initial team because it was such a glamourous study against the Americans. 

It was a very difficulty study filled with all sorts of technical problems, such as what happens if the student volunteers fell sick. Then we cannot treat them with drugs that may interfere with their blood chemistry. So we need to consult the pharmacologist which is the best way. 

Finally my Director asked me should such an event arose I should use my training in natural medicine to treat them. So I needed to double up as a clinical researcher as well as a doctor in the clinical trail.

I have to carry a pager day in and day out in the event any of the volunteers fall sick. There was no mobile hand phones then, only pagers. 

The study took us nearly a year to complete with lots of incentives given to the student volunteers. 

Finally we made it by looking at the anti thrombogenicity of the blood and other haemotogical pathology that can cause heart disease that the Americans doctors claimed if they consume palm oil as a tropical oil.

The next step is to publish our findings. It has to be in a very influential medical journal and the paper has to be written in 'gold standard' for it to be accepted for publication. Every word we wrote in that paper must be atom bomb resistant. 

Finally we chose the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. We submitted it, and waited for one year before they replied it was accepted. 

That gold standard paper led by me paved the way to turn the palm oil industry round into tens of billions of Ringgits every year. 

It was my landmark study against the American tough Big Boys just like going against the Big Pharma. 

That's was my best economic contribution in clinical research for Malaysia. 

 

Jb Lim

Labels:

Monday, July 12, 2021

The Efficacy of Anti-Covid Vaccines: How were they Evaluated?

By: Dr. Lim Ju Boo

First written:4.00am 11/07/2021 / Revised: 4.30am 12/07/2021

 

Dear Gentle Readers,

 

Good Morning to you all.

 

Let me start this very early 4.00am conversation by asking ourselves how effective are these anti-Covid vaccines?

 

Let me give just some examples to shorten these discussions.


Pfizer and Biontech claimed “high efficacy and no serious safety concerns through up to six months following the second dose of their vaccines”.

 

The Pfizer-BioNTech also claimed their vaccine was “95% effective”.


A  CDC study reported that a single dose of Pfizer's or Moderna's COVID vaccine was “80% effective in preventing infections”. That number jumped to “90% two weeks after the second dose”, the study on vaccinated health care workers showed.

 

In clinical trials, Moderna's vaccine reported “94.1% effectiveness at preventing COVID-19 in people who received both doses”.


In one Canadian study it was claimed that Pfizer was 87% effective after two doses, Moderna was “72% after one dose”.

 

There was some controversy over the effectiveness of AstraZeneca’s vaccine in late 2020 when it was revealed that some people in the early study groups only received half doses of the vaccine.

 

While AstraZeneca claimed that the vaccine was “70-percent effective”, it was later disclosed that the effectiveness was ”62 percent”. Other sources said that in people who received two full doses, closer to “90 percent in people who received one half and one full dose their vaccines were found effective”.

 

AstraZeneca used these two percentages to average an effectiveness rate at ”76 percent”.

 

Data on Sinovac’s CoronaVac vaccine is limited since a number of  studies on the vaccine are still underway.

 

In one report, investigators report that 97 to 100 percent of people who received the vaccine in clinical trials developed antibodies to COVID-19, but not all of the immune response markers measured in others. Now here is the catch. All these studies use only antibody response to gauge the efficacy of their vaccines as far as we know.

 

With all these claims, I am just wondering how they measure the efficacy of the various Covid vaccines? Did they base their conclusions solely on the antibodies appearing in the blood after vaccination or did they actually measure their results on clinical data on those with and those without getting the infection after vaccination?

 

There is a very huge difference between the two. Antibodies alone not necessary means clinical or protective efficacy

 

To me, to conduct such a study to evaluate the real clinical as well as their preventive efficacy in humans is almost impossible for ethical reasons. Allow me to explain.  

 

There are actually only two ways to evaluate clinical efficacy as far my training and working experience in leading a clinical trial allows me to understand and accept.

 

 

Study Design: 

 

 

Firstly, to briefly mention, we can either use randomized, placebo controlled clinical studies on a large population, or secondly, using matched-control and placebo group for the evaluation in a single blind, but preferably in a double blind study.

 

We will not go into statistical reasons on randomization in the study design. This would be a highly technical subject unless we are trained in medical statistics or in epidemiology, and have been involved in clinical trials as this article is meant only for the general lay reader. But briefly explained, the main reason to prevent bias in the sample selection.   

 

We can also follow up the cohorts longitudinally for many years on those who received, and those who did not receive the vaccination to determine if they confer long-term prevention against the disease.

 

However, briefly described, using either methodology and study design, we need a huge non-infected healthy population and divide them into 3  or even 4 groups.

 

In group 1 we will need to vaccinate all of them with the test vaccine. In group 2 none of them will be vaccinated, and in group 3 and in group 4 they will also not be vaccinated, but they will serve as control groups.

 

In group 3 they will be given a saline injection as a placebo (positive control) instead of the real vaccine, and in group 4 they will be given nothing (negative control). Group 4 may not even be necessary, but may be added if we wish.  

 

The next procedure is going to be a very difficult and highly unethical one. We will proceed to deliberately infect Groups 1 and 2 with the actual live SARS-CoV-2 virus after the vaccination.

  

An independent assessor, normally a senior experienced physician not involved in the study will serve as a “double blind” clinician who has no idea which group was given and which group was not given the vaccine.  

 

He will examine all the individuals in each group, and a bio-statistician will then analyze the data to determine if there is any statistical difference in all the groups. This is the standard way to gauge the clinical and preventive efficacy of any vaccine or any drug or any new treatment.

 

This study design is especially situated for those who already have a disease where we need to test out a new treatment using a drug or a vaccine. It is not meant to test out on healthy individuals.  

 

In other words, it is not normally adopted for testing out vaccines for preventive purposes. But we may have no or little choice if that was our purpose as this gold standard is normally used for those who already have the disease and not those who are otherwise healthy.  

 

 

Indirect Risk Assessment Method: 

 

 

However, there are other indirect methods such as looking at the odds ratio to determine any association between those exposed to a vaccine and any subsequent infection.

 

The use of an indirect method allows researchers to calculate out infection risk by determining the difference between those vaccinated against those not vaccinated. We will not go into the calculation to determine risk assessment  

 

Odd ratios are commonly used in case-control studies or in cross-sectional and long-term longitudinal follow-up cohort studies to gauge the effects of a drug, vaccine or a treatment.

 

But I think the gold standard is still if we can make a direct correlation between those vaccinated against those not vaccinated by directly infecting them.  

 

Unfortunately we are constrained by the highly unacceptable medical and moral ethics involved in deliberately infecting even a single individual, let alone a large population just to test out a vaccine or to carry out a medical experiment. This can never be done.

 

Perhaps we can also look at the epidemiology patterns in a population with and without the vaccines. This would also be an indirect study that can be approached.  

 

So our question now is, did all these studies and claims on the efficacy of the vaccines use human subjects by deliberately infecting them, or were they based on antibodies elicited after the vaccination, or were they assessed indirectly by risk assessment which is more likely?

 

Unfortunately there are lots of reported cases of people getting infected, or reinfected and even died perhaps with antibodies in the blood after completing their 2 doses. How do we explain that then? So we need to look at the antibodies also elicited after vaccination.  

 

Allow me to explain further.

 

The presence of antibodies are entirely different from clinical infection. One is merely the presence of chemical-based immune bodies, the other the presence of the disease

 

 

Antibodies:

 

 

Antibodies are each virus-specific, and they run into millions of classes, sub-classes and sub-sub-classes even though there are five immunoglobulin classes (isotypes) of antibody molecules found in serum, namely IgG, IgM, IgA, IgE, and IgD. 

 

They are distinguished by the type of heavy chain they contain. IgG molecules for instance, some  have heavy chains known as gamma chains; IgMs have mu -chains; IgAs have alpha-chains; IgEs have delta-chains; and IgDs have omega-chains..etc. .

 

Simply put, these variations in heavy chain polypeptides allow each immunoglobulin class to function in a different type and types of immune response or during a different stage of the body’s defense.

 

This means the type of immunoglobulin based on their amino acid sequences confer functional differences for different types of viruses, including the same virus that has mutated into another variant or strain. They are all different. It all depends on the chemical nature of the antigen presentation.

 

 

Vaccine Presentations:

 

  

There are at present different types of vaccines having been produced. Some examples among them are:

 

1.  Inactivated vaccines that are made from dead bacteria or inactivated viruses.

 

2.  Nucleic acid vaccines that use genetic DNA or RNA materials from the bacteria or virus to stimulate an immune response against it. 

 

3. Plasmid DNA and mRNA vaccines that use recombinant  biotechnologies.

 

4. Viral vector-based vaccines that differ from conventional vaccines in that they use the body’s own cells to produce them. This is done by using a modified virus (the vector) to deliver genetic code for antigen such as using COVID-19 spike proteins found on the surface of the virus to introduce them into human cells. 

 

5. Attenuated vaccine created by reducing the virulence of a pathogen, but still keeping it viable. 

 

Hence, the body will respond differently depending on the nature of the antigenic profiles, mainly the proteins expressed.

 

To give some simpler and traditional examples, antibodies against smallpox are different from those for poliomyelitis, that is again different for rabies, rubella or for rotaviral gastroenteritis, and so on.

 

Even flu vaccines differ from season to season due to its changing antigenic variants.

 

Once a virus mutates or changes they will not confer any clinical or protective immunity to a person, and hence all the current vaccines need to be changed.

 

But to develop a vaccine for all is not possible because the immunoglobulin expressed by the body are all going to be different to changing antigenic variants  

 

What we are trying to explain here in simple non-technical language is, we cannot base the efficacy of any vaccine by just measuring the IgM, and IgM response. This is an exceedingly misleading information given to health professionals like doctors, let alone to the ignorant public who has no clue about anything.  

 

Using humans to infect them to test out a vaccine is highly immoral and against medical ethics, so this approach cannot be used.

 

But ideally, this is the only direct method to evaluate, and there is no other better way to the best of my previous experience in conducting clinical trials when I was working at the Institute for Medical Research, Malaysia.

 

This means we need to evaluate their efficacy indirectly through risk assessment of infection pre and post vaccination stages, and I believe this has been done by the vaccine developers.

 

 

Only Humans:

 

 

Unfortunately we cannot use animals to evaluate either, because humans are the only ‘animal’ (zoologically-speaking) that is affected by this virus among an estimated of at least 100  million or more other animals.  

 

None of the other creatures on this Earth has been affected by this virus so far except some of them merely to harbor sufficient of this virus in their bodies as carriers as if like a water dam for adequate supply and distribution for humans like us. After all evolutionary medicine is also my interest and area.   

 

Hence there is no way we can use any other animal models except us to test out the efficacy of these vaccines, and we can only do this indirectly.

 

Now you are free to discuss your ideas further with me.

 

Thank you for reading.

 

 

Jb Lim

Labels:

Flag Counter