U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-31-2010, 10:19 PM
 
8,591 posts, read 4,419,832 times
Reputation: 3506

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
I don't understand the myopic views of "it didn't hurt ME so it's no big deal". Do people ever see beyond their own little lives? My dad survived cancer, but it's still a BFD.
First, you missed the point entirely ... not just ME ... but everyone I knew .. family friends, school mates ... my spouse and everyone she ever knew and went to school with ... her siblings ... all of them had the same experience. The horror stories are a LIE ..... the death totals and the supreme danger is a LIE ... that's the first point.

The second point is that you're employing reverse logic, that the severe adverse reactions to these vaccines are not cause for stopping this insanity ... you want to callously take the position ... "since the number of children affected is such a small percentage, it's OK" and you don't see the hypocrisy or irony in that stance? Tell me, what percentage of damaged children is acceptable? 100? 1,000? ... 10,000 ? Is 10,000 damaged children a year an acceptable number?

Now, don't claim there is no damage ... if that were true, there wouldn't have been a nationwide reporting system set up to report something that doesn't happen ... or damage fund created to compensate damage that doesn't occur ... or a vaccine court created for cases that don't exist!

Twelve to fourteen THOUSANDS claims annually of vaccine damage to children (and the estimates are that 90% go unreported) ... but you want to insinuate that for some unknown, unexplained, odd reason, I and so many others simply don't like vaccines. To you, this is just one of those mysteries like why people hate Brussels Sprouts?

There is no mystery here ... hundreds of thousands, if not Millions have been harmed, and people of good conscience and intelligence are waking up to this fraud. That's why I and many many others ... including physicians, PhD's, nurses, scientists, and virologists are standing up against this attack on helpless children. You can join in and be on the right side (the children's side) or get out of the way ... and quit being a mouthpiece for this pharma cartel of lies and suffering. You love the vaccines ... you can take them ... protect yourself, and don't worry about what everyone else chooses to do ... you take care of you ... you let others decide for themselves, and their children. It's not the government's choice, and it's not yours.

 
Old 12-31-2010, 10:27 PM
 
1,530 posts, read 3,028,210 times
Reputation: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Maybe you should educate yourself about proper science, and the bogus assumptions that are made regarding vaccine efficacy, and their testing.

If you give 100 healthy people a flu vaccine ... and they don't get the flu .. this isn't proof of efficacy of the vaccine. They were healthy, and unlikely to get the flu to begin with.

When you give healthy people flu vaccine ... and an antibody reaction is measured ... that means that they have a well functioning immune system, and are not likely to get the flu in the first place. (I've had the flu twice in my life ... and never had the vaccine .... and that is a long time, I'm old ... so what kept me from getting the flu for 52 years ... dumb luck?). No ... healthy people don't get the flu ... unhealthy people with low immune function get sick.

People that are most susceptible to becoming infected, and suffering the worst outcomes of the flu ... have weak immune systems and experience none or insufficient immune response to the vaccines ... and therefore receive no protection.

Finally, the only efficacy testing that is scientifically sound is double blind, with placebo ... show me where in the FDA regulations that require double blind placebo testing of vaccines?

There are no such requirements. And consequently ... the tests are purely bogus.

The facts are ... people that might need vaccine protection should any benefit to them exist, are unable to generate the necessary immune response to vaccines. The people who do respond, don't need the vaccine to begin with.
good posts guy-keep them coming
 
Old 12-31-2010, 10:33 PM
 
8,591 posts, read 4,419,832 times
Reputation: 3506
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Because there are people, such as babies who are too young to be vaccinated and those on chemo, who cannot be vaccinated. Those of you who choose not to be vaccinated put them at risk, because you provide a reservoir to keep the infections in the community.
What babies are too young? They're being jabbed at birth ... their mothers are being jabbed while carrying them ... so I'm not sure which babies you are referring to here ... seems like breathing is the only age criteria .. once they start doing that, the Ghouls are lining up with the syringes.

Secondly, you ever heard of carriers? When you have the flu ... and before you are symptomatic ... you can spread it, vaccinated or not ... you don't need to be sick. When you are symptomatic, you're in bed or in the john puking .. you aren't out dancing ... or hanging out in the cancer wards or babysitting infant children. Good God almighty.

I'm going to respond to that other post at a later time ... not going to wast New Years eve pointing out the other obvious points that lack an iota of truth or rationality.
 
Old 12-31-2010, 10:37 PM
 
1,530 posts, read 3,028,210 times
Reputation: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
I don't remember reading about Native American Indians "giving" any diseases to the European colonists.

What gives with the twisted white people, anyway?

"Before America was invaded and conquered did the natives have any diseases ?
I know that after coming into contact with Europeans the natives developed many sicknesses and many perished.
Did the natives have any bad diseases before contact, and if so why didn't the Europeans get sick?"

Before America was invaded and conquered did the natives have any diseases ? - Yahoo!7 Answers
No we did not have these diseases and we also didnt need dentists!
 
Old 12-31-2010, 10:47 PM
 
Location: California
27,807 posts, read 26,639,633 times
Reputation: 22603
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
What babies are too young? They're being jabbed at birth ... their mothers are being jabbed while carrying them ... so I'm not sure which babies you are referring to here ... seems like breathing is the only age criteria .. once they start doing that, the Ghouls are lining up with the syringes.

Secondly, you ever heard of carriers? When you have the flu ... and before you are symptomatic ... you can spread it, vaccinated or not ... you don't need to be sick. When you are symptomatic, you're in bed or in the john puking .. you aren't out dancing ... or hanging out in the cancer wards or babysitting infant children. Good God almighty.

I'm going to respond to that other post at a later time ... not going to wast New Years eve pointing out the other obvious points that lack an iota of truth or rationality.
Babies don't get all their childhood vaccines at birth. There is a schedule, and a reason for that schedule.

Quote:
First, you missed the point entirely ... not just ME ... but everyone I knew .. family friends, school mates ... my spouse and everyone she ever knew and went to school with ... her siblings ... all of them had the same experience. The horror stories are a LIE ..... the death totals and the supreme danger is a LIE ... that's the first point.

Every single person you know had WHAT experience? That they didn't die? I really don't get you. Nobody can deny diseases ran rampant and killed lot's of people.
 
Old 12-31-2010, 10:51 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
16,361 posts, read 19,605,705 times
Reputation: 17950
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
As a child ... I had all of them .... mumps ... measles .. chickenpox ... the deadly trio ... and I'm still here ... and I never have to worry about ever becoming infected again ... lifelong, natural immunity .... no booster shots needed. and as a result, my immune system was STRENGTHENED by the inconvenience of suffering through these common childhood diseases, providing a lifetime of benefits as a result.

Same here. First, I am neither pro or con re vaccinations but I've never seen a huge need for the mmr vaccine. These were NOT dreaded diseases by any means.


This is a common misconception.

Measles | Doctor | Patient UK

Mumps | Health | Patient UK

Rubella (German Measles) | Health | Patient UK

They can all cause serious long term complications, including nervous system defects. A major reason to vaccinate for rubella is to prevent the birth defects associated with congenital rubella.

Quote:
The dangerous diseases were smallpox and whooping cough--I heard horror stories from my mother about those killers. I lived though polio epidemics and was so grateful when the polio vaccine came out that--well, words cannot describe the feelings of relief and joy.
The dangers from the other vaccine preventable diseases may not seem as dramatic, but they are very real.

Quote:
I never heard of any child back then having autism. (I know, it was classified as something else.) But still, with all the large families back in those days NEVER did I hear of little kids who all of a sudden developed symptoms that could today be described as autism. There were a few mentally retarded and in school you'd usually have one kid in a class of 25 who was badly misbehaved.
These kids were not in your classes. They were considered uneducable and were at home or in institutions. Many were felt to have schizophrenia

Quote:
I don't think that if you added up the number of mentally retarded and the number of kids who acted out or had severe learning problems that it could ever match the number of children these days with autism--so it doesn't seem to me that it's a matter of just calling it by a different name today.

Most kids were just normal kids! So what accounts for the excess of neurologically damaged children of today?

The first autistic child I EVER saw was in the late '60s when I started teaching. He was not in my class but his behavior was totally different from anything I had ever observed. He didn't speak and he didn't interact and seemed to live in a world of his own. This was very very rare.


And when did the school systems start mainstreaming these kids? When did parents start keeping them at home instead of institutionalizing them?

Quote:
I realize that I have no scientific basis to make a case, just my own (and those of others I have spoken with) personal observations but this (long) thread is extremely interesting and I do wonder where all this neurological damage is coming from? Could it be too many vaccines given? or too many too close together?
too many, too close, too immature an immune system to be so strongly challenged? All of the above? a combination of the above? none of the above?

Then, if it's somehow related to the vaccines, is it the vaccine itself or an additive IN the vaccine?

Also, as a few have already stated much more eloquently, are some kids simply genetically predisposed to react to X (whatever it is.) Do they perhaps carry a gene or did they receive something dire from the mother either in breast milk or through the mother's bloodstream (from whatever she was exposed to-food, chemicals, etc.) before birth.

I'm enjoying learning things from those who have contributed to this thread and I hope there is more to come. Just wanted to add my own thoughts.

The overwhelming evidence is that autism is genetic.It affects more boys than girls. There is a strong concordance in identical twins. There are families with an autistic child who was vaccinated and an autistic child who was not vaccinated. There are families with multiple autistic children. Another consideration is the wide variation in severity of autism symptoms, suggesting the probability that multiple genes are involved. The studies do not show a greater incidence in kids who are vaccinated. The only reason we are even discussing vaccines in relation to autism is because of the scam Andrew Wakefield committed.

Thanks for joining the debate!
 
Old 12-31-2010, 10:57 PM
Status: "Happy New Year!" (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
77,906 posts, read 84,533,866 times
Reputation: 25573
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
What babies are too young? They're being jabbed at birth ... their mothers are being jabbed while carrying them ... so I'm not sure which babies you are referring to here ... seems like breathing is the only age criteria .. once they start doing that, the Ghouls are lining up with the syringes.

Secondly, you ever heard of carriers? When you have the flu ... and before you are symptomatic ... you can spread it, vaccinated or not ... you don't need to be sick. When you are symptomatic, you're in bed or in the john puking .. you aren't out dancing ... or hanging out in the cancer wards or babysitting infant children. Good God almighty.

I'm going to respond to that other post at a later time ... not going to wast New Years eve pointing out the other obvious points that lack an iota of truth or rationality.
The mothers are encouraged to get a Tdap and a flu shot b/c 1) the Tdap will protect the baby from pertussis before the baby is fully immunized, which takes at least six months for completion of the primary series. The babies that have DIED in California from pertussis have all been under three months old, and adults are the most likely source of the disease. 2) Pregnant women themselves are at higher risk of complications from flu if they get it while pregnant, you know, like death, which could be potentially harmful to the baby.

Infants can receive the Hep B vaccine at birth or any time thereafter. For the rest of the vaccines, the infant needs to be at least six weeks old, and most peds start them at two months.

If you have been immunized against flu more than two weeks ago and developed good immunity, you cannot spread the disease if you are exposed to it, b/c you won't get it yourself. You can't spread what you don't have. If you are incubating flu, you are contagious for about a day before you develop symptoms.

Influenza is not a vomiting and diarrhea disease, BTW. I think the reason so many people claim to have gotten the flu after the vaccine is b/c they falsely believe this. Flu is a respiratory disease. Kids may have some v and d, but they are not the main symptoms.
 
Old 12-31-2010, 11:32 PM
 
8,591 posts, read 4,419,832 times
Reputation: 3506
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
This just proves that you really need to learn more about basic science and immunolgy before you keep talking about vaccines.

Healthy people do get the flu. Babies get it. Kids get it. Pregnant women get it. The whole reason that it is now recommended that everyone get flu vaccine is because healthy people can catch the flu!


Then why do most people who get the flu recover and are then immune to that particular strain of the flu? How did their "weak" immune systems prevent them from (usually) dying from the illness? If their immune systems were what caused them to get sick, why did they get well? People who truly do have impaired immune systems, such as those on chemotherapy and the few people with genetic forms of immunodeficiency should try to avoid exposure to others with infectious diseases and are not offered vaccines, either. but when someone comes off chemo, then vaccines can be resumed after the immune system recovers.
Your immune system doesn't recover so quickly (if ever) from chemotherapy ... the other witchdoctor treatment that destroys the immune system ... and the exact opposite of what a cancer patient actually should be doing, which is bolstering, not destroying the immune system. You really are hip deep in the pharma BS aren't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Who said that phase 3 vaccine trials are not controlled?

phase 3 vaccine trial - definition of phase 3 vaccine trial in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

"phase 3 vaccine trial Immunology A large controlled study to determine the ability of a new vaccine to produce a desired clinical effect on the risk of a given infection, disease, or other condition at an optimum dose and schedule."
Look, just stop dancing and playing games ... don't show me definitions, show me actual results .. actual studies that were controlled, double blind, placebo studies of efficacy. You can't. I've read these studies, and I know how they operate them ... and it's laughable ... they just bury the truth in a bunch of double talk that few people understand.

One of those little terms is "randomized" meaning that they give someone a vaccine, send them on their way and wait ... they may even check on them at stages ... and see if they get sick. If they don't viola! If they do get sick, they usually discard that data anyway ... because that's what they do ... this is the only industry I know of that can perform their own safety and efficacy testing on their own products, and the FDA says ... looks good to me! There's no one there to ensure the tests are done legitimately, or that ALL of the pertinent data, good or bad is included. The fact is, not one of these companies have ever said to the FDA .. never mind ... we tested this stuff and wouldn't give it to our worst enemy ... we're goin to just throw it away. Never mind.

You don't get it, do you?

Look, I read about a 30 page document a few years ago ... written by a microbiologist who pointed out all of the shady deals done as a routine inside the safety and efficacy testing of drugs ... showing examples from real studies that literally excluded BY DESIGN anyone who got sick. That's right .. anyone who got sick ... they were excluded as one of the criteria of the study before it started. With a test like that ... how can you fail?

And there are many other similar, though perhaps not as blatant and overt frauds that regularly take place. And who could blame them really .. they have Billions riding on a favorable study result ... and they are doing the study themselves? hahahaha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Diarrhea Clinical Trial: Randomized Controlled Trial of Killed Oral Cholera Vaccine in Kolkata [Conditions: Diarrhea, Cholera, Vibrio Infections; Interventions: bivalent killed whole cell oral cholera vaccine, Placebo]

"phase 3 vaccine trial A double-blind randomised phase III trial of the reformulated oral killed bivalent cholera vaccine in an urban slum site in Kolkata"

And, for your information, there are many different types of scientifically valid medical studies:

Types of Study in Medical Research
Oh you misunderstand ... I'm not saying these various tests don't exist ... I know they exist. You don't need to prove that. My point was that they don't provide the data required to prove efficacy.

My example of not having had the flu for the past 40 years, and only twice before that ... once as a kid, and again in my teens ... randomized testing wouldn't have provided much definitive information on me ... would it have? But the pharma company would LOVE ME ... because thay'd say I WAS PROOF that their wonderful vaccine worked!!

This is the part you apparently really don't get (or as you already tried to deny) is that healthy people don't generally get the flue ... sure, occasionally, even pretty healthy people can get run down .. be under stress which lowers their immune system .. and can get the flu. But GENERALLY speaking ... people that don't get the flu ... just don't get it ... or they rarely get it. Then there are the ones that can catch a cold over the phone, and the always get the flu. And I've talked to dozens of people who got the flu even though the got the jab. Didn't help. Why? Several reasons .... one ... more often than not, the strain they develop the shot for isn't the one that spreads during the season .. so it's useless. And ... AGAIN ... those most likely to get sick don't respond to the vaccine because it requires an immune response they can't produce..

IT IS A GIGANTIC FRAUD
 
Old 01-01-2011, 12:31 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
16,361 posts, read 19,605,705 times
Reputation: 17950
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
As a child ... I had all of them .... mumps ... measles .. chickenpox ... the deadly trio ... and I'm still here ... and I never have to worry about ever becoming infected again ... lifelong, natural immunity .... no booster shots needed. and as a result, my immune system was STRENGTHENED by the inconvenience of suffering through these common childhood diseases, providing a lifetime of benefits as a result.

Now, if I were as callous as the vaccine champions, I could turn right around and use the same argument that some of you use .... that the kids who died from these diseases obviously suffered some underlying genetic defect that I and most other kids didn't suffer, so why should we lose the immune system development benefits of these diseases, making us dependent on pharmaceutical companies to protect us, for the sake of the minority who may die from the disease? You do realize that the alleged immunity from such vaccinations do not offer lifetime immunity as does the disease itself, don't you?

But I'm not so callous ... as I view every child just as valuable as the next ... with none of them falling into a category of acceptable losses for the greater good.
None of us have said that kids that die from a vaccine preventable diseases have a genetic defect. Quite the contrary, most of them were healthy and would likely have had normal lives. I certainly never said that.

See here for chickenpox:

Vaccines: VPD-VAC/Varicella/Disease FAQs

Though rare, you can get it more than once. And if you have had it, you are at risk to develop shingles.

If vaccine produced immunity wanes, it is possible to take a booster. No big deal.

I view the kids who die or suffer lifelong disability from preventable infectious diseases as an absolutely unacceptable tragedy.

Quote:
No, my argument is based on the un-manipulated facts that the death rates of these childhood diseases have been astronomically overstated to justify the vaccine programs ...while also fraudulently claiming the effectiveness of these vaccines ... all to make tons of money from them, while causing more harm to children than the disease itself.

Contrary to the LIES ... the death rate for measles (for example) from 1901 forward had declined by 99.4% prior to the development of the vaccine in 1968. PAY ATTENTION ... I said the "Death Rate" had declined by 99.4% ... not the incidence of the disease itself ... and that is an important point. And it shows that the vaccine had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with saving children's lives. So this is the FIRST FRAUD, but just the starting point.
This is beautifully debunked here:

Measles deaths, pre-vaccine | Mystery Rays from Outer Space

Read the whole 5 part series!

This (the drop in deaths ---Suzy Q) had nothing to do with the measles vaccine, because this survival increase happened entirely before the vaccine was available in 1963. There was essentially no change in the number of measles cases over this period (adjusted for population, of course), itís just that once you caught measles you werenít as likely to die. And case-fatality rates didnít change significantly after the vaccine was introduced. The death rate per case in 1955 (pre-vaccine) is pretty much what we see today in first-world measles outbreaks.
The vaccine did spectacularly reduce the number of cases, of course, and therefore did reduce the total number of deaths. Also, equally obviously, vaccines arenít only given to prevent deaths. Even if measles doesnít actually kill your child, sheíll still, quite possibly, be pretty sick; thereís a pretty good chance sheíll be hospitalized; and a significant number of survivors have some form of medium- or long-term complications.

Quote:
When I got all of these diseases ... so did everyone else I knew ... my large extended family with dozens having these diseases ... childhood friends and school mates ... not one of them died from any of them. NOT ONE. And something else .... none of them had asthma ... none had Leukemia ... Diabetes ... Brain Cancer ... deadly diseases that were unheard of back then with regard to kids, and associated with adults ... though now exploding in children today. That's a clue, but a topic unto itself.
Because you did not witness it does not mean it didn't happen.

Quote:
So, let's stick to the point ... as a kid, I got all of these diseases ... and not once did I or anyone else I knew ever got sick enough from them that required hospitalization ... and this is IMPORTANT. Back then, everyone knew what to do ... and home care was the general way of the day. Suffice it to say that only a tiny tiny fraction of the kids that got these diseases actually became sick enough to require hospitalization, and of that, some percentage of those actually died. Lets say 1 out of every 500 cases had to be hospitalized, and 2 out of every 10 hospitalized, died. Because of this, they try to claim a 20% death rate ... when in reality .. the number is actually 1/5 of .002% or .0004%. There is a slight difference between 20% and .0004% ... don't you think?
The death rates are not reported as deaths per number of cases hospitalized. They are reported as deaths per 100 000 population. They are not simple percentages. They are RATES. Death rates are used because they have a very definite end point, and the info comes from death certificates. You need a statistics course.

Quote:
Of course nobody knows how many actually got the disease because there are no records of the vast majority who simply stayed home and let it run it's course. So how can they possibly claim a legitimate death rate? They can't ... it's a fraud ... and it is designed to get you to believe that the disease is very deadly, and that vaccines saves lots of lives. Shear nonsense.
You are confusing the case fatality rate with death rate. They are different things. The case fatality rate is the number of deaths over the number of diagnosed cases. It tells the risk of dying if you get the disease. You do not have to be hospitalized to be diagnosed. If you are asymptomatic there is no way you are going to be diagnosed, so those cases are ignored for statistical purposes.

In countries where there are still a large number of measles cases, the case fatality rate is about the same as before the vaccine was introduced.

Quote:
Now contrast that with the number of adverse reactions to vaccines each year ... which runs about 14,000 cases annually. The official estimate is that only 1-10% of adverse reactions are ever reported by Doctors ... which means 140,000 to to over a Million cases may occur each year.

ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute: Secret Vaccine Database

So the numbers are phony, the books are cooked, the benefits are exaggerated, and the risks covered up ... and they want to make it mandatory for everyone, no exceptions and no excuses.

And they are doing it all out of their sincere concern for children, and not for the Billions in profit.

Right!!!

The majority of the reactions to vaccines are injection site soreness and fevers which can easily be treated. The fact is that the majority of the most serious adverse reactions such as seizures are reported.

Vaccines are cost effective:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/con...3/666.full.pdf

'A recent analysis confirmed that older vaccines are cost-saving; it found that current
childhood vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Hib, polio, measles,
mumps, rubella, and hepatitis B, when considered together, have benefit cost
ratios of more than 5:1 for direct costs and 17:1 for societal costs."

That means vaccines save $5 for every $1 spent on them just in costs of medical care. When you include such things as lost time from work, they save $15 per $1 spent. It costs more to treat the illnesses than to pay for the vaccines!.
 
Old 01-01-2011, 12:36 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
16,361 posts, read 19,605,705 times
Reputation: 17950
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
What babies are too young? They're being jabbed at birth ... their mothers are being jabbed while carrying them ... so I'm not sure which babies you are referring to here ... seems like breathing is the only age criteria .. once they start doing that, the Ghouls are lining up with the syringes.

Secondly, you ever heard of carriers? When you have the flu ... and before you are symptomatic ... you can spread it, vaccinated or not ... you don't need to be sick. When you are symptomatic, you're in bed or in the john puking .. you aren't out dancing ... or hanging out in the cancer wards or babysitting infant children. Good God almighty.

I'm going to respond to that other post at a later time ... not going to wast New Years eve pointing out the other obvious points that lack an iota of truth or rationality.

If you get vaccinated, you do not get the flu and you cannot be a "carrier."

It is those of you who do not get vaccinated who spread it before you realize you are sick.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 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, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top