Bridging the Divide: A Call for Scientific Accountability

The increasing disconnect between scientific expertise and public trust is a critical issue of our time. Recent discussions, especially those surrounding the role of science during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlight the urgency of addressing this growing chasm. This article explores the factors contributing to this divide, arguing that a crucial element – the performance of expert advisory bodies during times of crisis – often receives insufficient scrutiny.

The Pervasive Influence of Science in Modern Life

we live in an era profoundly shaped by scientific advancements. From medical breakthroughs to technological innovations, science permeates nearly every facet of modern existence. This influence became particularly stark during the recent global health crisis. Never before has a wider segment of the population been so directly and intensely exposed to scientific discourse, data, and predictions. The COVID-19 pandemic thrust scientific advice into the center of public policy and daily life, impacting everything from personal freedoms to economic stability.

The role of Advisory Bodies: A Case for Critical Evaluation

During the pandemic, governmental responses in many nations were heavily guided by the recommendations of expert advisory committees, such as the Outbreak Management Team (OMT) in the Netherlands. These groups, comprised of scientists and medical professionals, wielded significant influence, shaping policies like lockdowns, social distancing measures, and resource allocation within healthcare systems. while the intention was to leverage the best available scientific knowledge, the process wasn’t without it’s flaws.

A key concern is the extent to which these recommendations were based on robust evidence and considered a diversity of scientific perspectives. Often, models and predictions – like those originating from institutions such as the RIVM – were presented as definitive forecasts, despite inherent uncertainties and limitations. The speed at which decisions were made sometimes left little room for thorough debate or the incorporation of alternative viewpoints. This created a situation where policy was driven by a relatively narrow band of scientific opinion.

Beyond Dialog: Addressing the Root of distrust

The narrative often centers on improving science communication as the primary solution to bridging the gap between science and society.While effective communication is undoubtedly important, it addresses only a symptom, not the underlying cause.If the scientific process itself is perceived as flawed, biased, or lacking clarity, even the most eloquent explanations will fail to restore public trust.

Consider the analogy of a mechanic. A mechanic can tell a customer their car needs a specific repair, but if the customer observes the mechanic using questionable methods or recommending unnecessary services, trust erodes.Similarly, scientists must not only communicate their findings but also demonstrate the integrity and rigor of their methods.

The Importance of Openness and Accountability

Moving forward, a more nuanced approach is required. This includes fostering greater transparency in the workings of expert advisory bodies, ensuring diverse depiction of scientific viewpoints, and acknowledging the inherent uncertainties within scientific modeling. It also necessitates a willingness to critically evaluate past decisions, learning from both successes and failures.

Recent data suggests a decline in public trust in institutions, including scientific organizations. A 2023 pew Research Center study found that only 28% of Americans have a great deal of confidence in scientists, down from 39% in 2020. This trend underscores the need for proactive measures to rebuild trust and ensure that scientific expertise serves the public good.

A Path forward: Rebuilding the Scientific Compact

The challenge lies in rebuilding the social contract between science and society. This requires not only acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge but also embracing a culture of open inquiry,critical evaluation,and accountability. By prioritizing these principles, we can begin to bridge the divide and ensure that scientific advancements benefit all of humanity. The appointment of a professor dedicated to “Science and society” represents a valuable opportunity to initiate this crucial conversation and chart a course towards a more informed and trusting future.

Eroding Public Trust: A Critical Look at Expert Guidance During the Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges, demanding swift and decisive action.However, a retrospective examination reveals significant shortcomings in the advisory process, particularly concerning the guidance provided by expert committees and public health institutions. These missteps, frequently enough occurring in plain sight, have demonstrably contributed to a decline in public trust in scientific authority – a trend with potentially long-lasting consequences. This erosion isn’t simply a matter of disagreement; it stems from demonstrable discrepancies between available data and the recommendations implemented, coupled with a lack of accountability following the crisis.

The Absence of Post-Crisis Evaluation

A crucial element missing from the pandemic response was a thorough, independent evaluation of the advice offered by advisory bodies like the OMT (Outbreak Management Team) and the RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment). while retrospective analyses are common in fields like military strategy and disaster response, a similar level of scrutiny has been conspicuously absent in the context of public health. Moreover, there’s been a notable silence from the scientists involved; few have publicly acknowledged potential errors in judgment or areas for betterment. This lack of self-reflection fuels skepticism and hinders future preparedness. According to a recent Pew Research Center study (February 2024), trust in scientists to act in the public’s best interest has decreased by 11% since 2020, a trend directly correlated with perceived inconsistencies in pandemic messaging.

The Central Role of Expert Visibility and Accountability

The pandemic thrust scientific experts into the public spotlight like never before. Individuals like Professor Van Dissel became household names, effectively serving as the public face of science during a period of intense anxiety and uncertainty. This heightened visibility amplified the impact of their pronouncements,but also increased the need for transparency and accuracy.The concentration of authority in a few key figures created a situation where errors or misinterpretations could have far-reaching consequences.it also meant that any perceived failings were directly associated with the scientific community as a whole.

Discrepancies in Early Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) Estimates

Early in the pandemic, significant discrepancies emerged between available research and the guidance provided to policymakers. Such as, investigations conducted in April 2020, including data from Los Angeles County, and research concerning the Gangelt region, suggested a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) closer to 0.3%, with the elderly being disproportionately affected. However, in May 2020, Professor Van Dissel reported an IFR of 5.0% to the Dutch Parliament. This higher estimate significantly influenced policy decisions throughout the summer of 2020, leading to more stringent measures than might have been warranted based on the emerging evidence. this is akin to building a flood defense system based on a projected sea level rise that is five times higher than the most likely scenario – a costly and potentially unnecessary undertaking.

Ignoring Seasonal Patterns and Prolonging Restrictions

Despite early indications that COVID-19 exhibited a seasonal pattern similar to influenza,many restrictions remained in place throughout the summer of 2020,fueled by concerns about a potential “second wave.” This wave ultimately materialized in the fall, coinciding with the typical seasonal increase in respiratory illnesses, including the flu. Maintaining restrictions during a period when transmission rates were naturally declining appears to have been a misjudgment, potentially causing unnecessary economic and social disruption. Imagine a farmer continuing to irrigate a field during a prolonged period of rainfall – a wasteful and counterproductive practise.

The Overlooked Reality of Airborne COVID-19 Transmission: A Costly Delay in recognition

For over two years,the dominant narrative surrounding COVID-19 transmission focused heavily on droplet spread and surface contamination. However, mounting evidence suggests a critical element was consistently downplayed: the role of airborne transmission. This oversight, stemming from initial assertions by organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and echoed by national health institutes, had significant consequences, potentially contributing to preventable loss of life.

Early Dismissal of Airborne Potential

In the early stages of the pandemic, around late March 2020, the WHO publicly stated that the virus was not airborne. This position was supported by some scientists, leading to public health recommendations centered on maintaining a 1.5-meter distance, diligent hand hygiene, and avoiding physical contact. The underlying assumption was that the virus spread primarily through larger droplets expelled during coughing or sneezing, which quickly fell to the ground.Though, this contradicted a significant body of pre-existing research on influenza and other respiratory viruses. Decades of studies demonstrated that these pathogens frequently spread through the air, particularly in poorly ventilated spaces with low humidity. These environments allow viral particles to remain suspended for extended periods, increasing the risk of inhalation. A wealth of literature on aerosol transmission was available even as early as March 2020, detailing the mechanisms and risks involved.

A Growing Chorus of Concern

Despite the initial dismissal, a growing number of scientists began to challenge the prevailing narrative. By mid-2020, a collective of 239 experts published an open letter urging health organizations to acknowledge the potential for airborne transmission.Their concerns were largely met with resistance from key advisory bodies like the Dutch Outbreak management Team (OMT) and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).The reasoning employed to dismiss airborne transmission was, to many in the scientific community, deeply flawed. Arguments were presented that lacked logical consistency, particularly for those with a background in physics or aerosol science.

Illustrative Cases Highlighting Airborne Risk

Several real-world events underscored the likelihood of airborne spread, yet were frequently enough misinterpreted or downplayed:

The Seattle Choir Outbreak: In March 2020, a choir practice in Seattle resulted in a significant number of attendees contracting COVID-19, despite attempts at social distancing. The primary factor wasn’t close proximity during general activities, but rather prolonged exposure in a confined space – the coffee room – where individuals were likely speaking and singing, generating aerosols.
The Gangelt Carnival Cluster: An outbreak linked to carnival celebrations in Gangelt,germany,revealed a higher infection rate among attendees (approximately 50%) compared to household contacts of infected individuals (around 30%). This disparity is arduous to explain solely through close-range droplet transmission, as household members often experience more sustained close contact. Misinterpreted Data on Aerosol Impact: In August 2020, a leading health official suggested that aerosols weren’t a significant factor because infection rates had declined alongside the implementation of other measures. This reasoning ignored the fact that restrictions on gatherings directly reduced opportunities for airborne transmission, independent of any seasonal effects.
The Atalanta-Valencia Match: The OMT cited a COVID-19 outbreak following a Champions League match in Milan as evidence against airborne spread, focusing on potential transmission during travel. However, the possibility of transmission during the crowded stadium and associated gatherings was largely overlooked.

The Delayed Adoption of Ventilation Strategies

Recognizing the importance of ventilation as a key mitigation strategy was significantly delayed. A comprehensive “Ventilation Delta Plan” outlining measures to improve indoor air quality and create safer spaces was proposed as early as June 2020. However, it wasn’t until May 2021 – nearly a year later – that ventilation received even cursory mention during public health briefings.This delay proved particularly devastating in care facilities, where vulnerable residents were often kept in poorly ventilated environments with closed windows and doors

The Flawed Logic Behind Dutch COVID-19 Policies: A Retrospective Analysis

The Netherlands’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly between late 2021 and early 2022, was marked by policies that, in hindsight, appear to have been based on questionable scientific reasoning and ultimately proved detrimental. A critical examination reveals a pattern of decisions driven by flawed assumptions and a failure to adequately incorporate emerging data, leading to unnecessary restrictions and societal disruption. this analysis will focus on specific measures – the 3G access pass and the subsequent Omicron-driven lockdown – to illustrate these shortcomings.

The Illusion of Safety: The 3G Access Pass system

From late September 2021 to March 2022, the Dutch government implemented a “3G” system, requiring proof of vaccination, negative test result, or recent recovery from COVID-19 for entry into various public spaces. The underlying premise of this system was fundamentally flawed: the belief that vaccinated individuals were incapable of transmitting the virus. This assumption, widely debated even before its implementation in the Netherlands, created a false sense of security.

While intended to create safer environments, the 3G pass inadvertently facilitated riskier behavior. Individuals, believing they were protected by the vaccination status of those around them, may have lowered their guard, increasing the potential for transmission from asymptomatic or vaccinated carriers. Numerous instances demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the system in preventing outbreaks.

Consider, for example, an event held in November 2021 at Helmond Castle, attended by former members of parliament. All attendees were required to present a valid QR code, adhering strictly to the regulations. Despite this, a staggering 25 out of the attendees – over half the group – afterward tested positive for COVID-19. https://www.omroepbrabant.nl/nieuws/3991891/25-oud-kamerleden-lopen-corona-op-tijdens-uitstapje-naar-kasteel-helmond This incident serves as a stark reminder that access passes based on vaccination status alone are not foolproof barriers against viral spread. It’s akin to believing a screen door will stop a hurricane – it offers a superficial layer of protection but ultimately fails to withstand the force of the storm.

The implementation of the 3G system, therefore, represents a significant misstep, born from a misunderstanding of the virus’s transmission dynamics and a reliance on unsubstantiated assumptions.

The Omicron Miscalculation: A Lockdown Based on Erroneous Projections

The emergence of the Omicron variant near Johannesburg in late November 2021 presented a new challenge. Early reports from South African doctors indicated that while Omicron was significantly more contagious than previous variants,it generally caused less severe illness. Despite this encouraging data, the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) projected a dire scenario.

RIVM’s model combined Omicron’s high transmissibility with the severity of the preceding Delta variant. This resulted in a forecast predicting overwhelming hospital capacity by the end of January 2022, prompting the suggestion for a stringent lockdown. This lockdown, lasting six weeks, imposed significant economic and social costs on the Dutch population.

Though, the RIVM’s projections failed to materialize. Data emerging from South Africa consistently showed a decoupling of infections and severe illness with Omicron. The Netherlands, uniquely among European nations, implemented the lockdown based on a flawed model that disregarded real-world evidence. This is comparable to a meteorologist predicting a blizzard based on outdated atmospheric conditions – the forecast is inaccurate because it doesn’t reflect the current reality.

As of February 2024, studies continue to demonstrate the milder nature of Omicron and its

The Erosion of Public Trust: Examining Forecast Inaccuracies During Pandemic Restrictions

The implementation of stringent lockdowns and public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic sparked considerable debate, particularly concerning the predictive models used to justify these interventions. A critical examination of these models, specifically those employed by the RIVM (netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), reveals significant discrepancies between projected outcomes and actual observed data, raising serious questions about the basis for policy decisions and the resulting impact on public trust in scientific institutions.

The Disconnect Between Prediction and Reality

During the early stages of the Omicron wave in early 2022, the RIVM model forecasted a substantial strain on intensive care unit (ICU) capacity. Projections indicated an anticipated ICU occupancy of approximately 1700 patients by the fourth week of the predicted surge. However, the reality diverged dramatically from this forecast. Actual ICU occupancy never exceeded 400 patients during that period. This substantial underestimation of actual conditions calls into question the model’s reliability and the assumptions underpinning its calculations.

[Image of graph comparing RIVM forecast to actual figures – similar to original, but potentially sourced from a different, publicly available source]

This isn’t simply a matter of minor adjustments; the gap between prediction and reality was profound.Even as data accumulated throughout january 2022,clearly demonstrating the model’s inaccuracies,the restrictive lockdown measures remained in place until the end of the month. This persistence in the face of contradictory evidence is a key factor in the growing skepticism surrounding public health guidance.

The Cost of Prolonged restrictions

The lockdown, lasting six weeks from just before Christmas 2021 to late January 2022, imposed significant social and economic costs on the population. Businesses faced closures, educational institutions were disrupted, and individuals experienced limitations on their personal freedoms. A 2023 study by the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis estimated that the lockdowns resulted in a 1.5% reduction in the Netherlands’ GDP. The continuation of these measures despite demonstrably flawed predictions fueled public frustration and eroded confidence in the decision-making process.

Beyond the Lockdown: Questionable Research Practices

Concerns extend beyond the initial lockdown period to encompass subsequent research methodologies. Reports from organizations like NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Health services Research) and UMC Utrecht (University Medical Center Utrecht) have come under scrutiny for potential biases in their conclusions. For example, a NIVEL report claimed there was no evidence of deaths due to vaccination in the initial period following vaccination rollout. This conclusion was reached by observing a 44% lower “All Cause Mortality” in the first three weeks post-vaccination compared to subsequent weeks. However, this analysis fails to account for potential confounding factors, such as the time lag between vaccination and immune response, or pre-existing health conditions within the vaccinated cohort.

Such instances, where research appears to prioritize pre-determined outcomes over objective analysis, are deeply concerning.They reinforce a perception that scientific integrity may be compromised, further damaging public trust. The ability to critically evaluate information and maintain faith in evidence-based decision-making is crucial for a functioning society,and these examples threaten that foundation.

Rebuilding Confidence through Transparency and Rigor

The events surrounding the pandemic response highlight the critical importance of transparency, rigorous methodology, and honest acknowledgment of errors within the scientific community. moving forward, it is essential to prioritize open data sharing, independent validation of models, and a willingness to revise strategies based on evolving evidence. Without these basic changes, the erosion of public trust in science will continue, hindering our ability to effectively address future public health challenges.

The Illusion of Safety: Questioning Mortality Data Following COVID-19 vaccination

Recent analyses of mortality rates following COVID-19 vaccination have sparked debate, with initial reports suggesting a significant reduction in deaths post-vaccination. However, a closer examination reveals a critical flaw in interpreting these findings: a failure to account for the inherent selection bias within the vaccinated population. The core issue isn’t whether mortality rates are lower immediately after vaccination, but why they appear to be.

The Initial Findings and Their Misinterpretation

Studies have indicated a decrease in mortality in the weeks following vaccination. As an example, one report highlighted a 69% lower death rate in the first week post-vaccination compared to the three weeks prior. This reduction decreased to 45% in the second week and 25% in the third. While these figures seem promising at first glance, the analysis overlooks a fundamental principle of epidemiology: those most vulnerable to imminent death were likely prioritized for early vaccination campaigns.

This creates a scenario where the vaccinated group, initially, comprised individuals already on a trajectory towards higher mortality. Consequently, any intervention – vaccination or otherwise – would naturally appear to reduce deaths simply because the most likely candidates for near-term mortality had already received it. As time progresses and vaccination extends to broader, healthier segments of the population, this effect diminishes, leading to a gradual increase in mortality rates among the vaccinated.

Selection Bias: The Unacknowledged Factor

The critical question researchers should have addressed isn’t simply how much lower mortality is in the initial weeks,but how the composition of the vaccinated group influences these results. The observed reduction in mortality could be a direct outcome of proactively vaccinating those already at high risk of dying,rather than a protective effect of the vaccine itself.

To illustrate, imagine a scenario where a pre-existing selection process, independent of vaccination, would have resulted in a 55% mortality rate over three weeks. If vaccination inadvertently accelerated the process of identifying and vaccinating those most vulnerable, that rate might be reduced to 45% due to the prioritization of individuals already nearing the end of life. The reported 44% reduction in mortality, therefore, may be a statistical artifact of this selection process, not evidence of vaccine efficacy.

The Consequences of Flawed Research

The failure to acknowledge and address this selection bias has had tangible consequences. Misleading conclusions drawn from these studies have been cited by public officials, potentially influencing public health policy and eroding public trust. A rigorous and transparent examination is crucial to rectify these misinterpretations and ensure future analyses are conducted with methodological integrity.

Rebuilding Trust Through scientific Rigor

The broader implications extend beyond this specific study. This instance underscores a concerning trend: a lack of critical self-evaluation within the scientific community, particularly during times of crisis. To bridge the widening gap between science and society, it is imperative that researchers embrace transparency, acknowledge potential biases, and subject their findings to robust scrutiny.

This requires a willingness to openly debate methodologies and interpretations, even when challenging established narratives. Without such accountability, skepticism will persist, hindering effective public health communication and potentially undermining future scientific endeavors. A commitment to unbiased research and honest reporting is not merely a scientific imperative, but a societal one.

Open Letter: Robbert Dijkgraaf – Concerns & Questions Shaping Our Future

this open letter addresses key concerns and questions directed toward Robbert Dijkgraaf, focusing on vital aspects of education, research, and scientific progress. It aims to initiate a constructive dialog surrounding crucial issues impacting our community and future generations. The following sections delve into specific areas warranting careful consideration and potential action.

The State of Dutch Education and the Role of Robbert Dijkgraaf

Dutch education has long been admired for its quality and accessibility. However,recent challenges,including increasing class sizes,teacher shortages,and evolving demands of the modern workforce,necessitate a critical evaluation. Robbert Dijkgraaf’s insights and potential influence in shaping educational policies are of paramount importance.

• Teacher shortage Crisis: Exploring the root causes and potential solutions to alleviate the growing shortage of qualified educators.
• Curriculum Relevance: Ensuring the curriculum remains aligned with the evolving needs of the job market and prepares students for future challenges.
• Funding Allocation: Examining current funding models and advocating for equitable distribution to support all levels of education.
• Digital Literacy: Preparing the digital citizen of tomorrow.

Addressing Concerns Regarding Research Funding and Accessibility

Scientific research is the cornerstone of innovation and progress. Transparent and equitable access to research funding is crucial for fostering groundbreaking discoveries and addressing pressing global challenges.Concerns surrounding funding allocation, bureaucratic hurdles, and the accessibility of research findings warrant careful examination.

Key Questions on Research Funding

• Funding Priorities: How are research funding priorities determined, and what measures are in place to ensure transparency and inclusivity?
• Support for Early-Career Researchers: What initiatives are being implemented to support early-career researchers and provide them with opportunities for advancement?
• Public-Private Partnerships: What are the benefits and potential drawbacks of public-private partnerships in research funding, and how can we mitigate risks?
• open Access Initiatives: How do we promote wider access to publicly funded research findings.

The Impact of Climate Change and the Role of Science

Climate change remains one of the most pressing challenges facing humanity. Scientific research plays a crucial role in understanding the causes and consequences of climate change and developing innovative solutions to mitigate its impact. Dijkgraaf’s expertise and influence in promoting climate-conscious policies are highly valued.

Strategies for a Lasting Future

• Investing in Renewable Energy Research: Exploring innovative technologies and sustainable energy solutions to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
• Promoting climate Education: raising awareness and educating future generations about the importance of environmental stewardship.
• International Collaboration: fostering collaboration among nations to address climate change on a global scale.
• Support circular economy and waste reduction initiatives.

Exploring the Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Ethical Considerations

artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming various aspects of our lives, from healthcare to transportation. However, the development and deployment of AI raise ethical concerns that must be addressed to ensure its responsible use. Ethical frameworks and regulations are needed to govern AI’s development and deployment, ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Data privacy and security, algorithmic bias, and the potential impact of job displacement are critical issues that demand careful consideration.Ensuring equitable access to AI technologies and mitigating potential negative consequences are essential for maximizing its benefits while minimizing its risks.

Navigating the Ethical Landscape of AI

• Data Privacy and Security: How can we safeguard personal data and ensure the responsible use of AI-driven technologies?
• Algorithmic Bias: What measures are being taken to mitigate algorithmic bias and ensure fairness in AI decision-making processes?
• Job Displacement: How can governments and organizations prepare for the potential displacement of jobs due to AI and automation?
• AI Governance: How can we create robust governance frameworks.

Bridging the Gap Between Science and the Public

Effective communication of scientific concepts and discoveries is essential for fostering public understanding and engagement. Bridging the gap between science and the public requires clear and accessible communication strategies that resonate with diverse audiences. Increased scientific literacy empowers citizens to make informed decisions about health, technology, and environmental issues.

Strategies for Effective Science Communication

• Utilizing Social media Platforms: leveraging social media platforms to disseminate scientific details and engage with the public.
• Supporting Science journalism: Promoting quality science journalism to ensure accurate and informative reporting.
• Encouraging Public Engagement: Organizing science festivals, workshops, and interactive exhibits to engage the public in hands-on learning experiences.

Case Study: The Impact of Research Grants on Local Communities

To understand the direct impact of Robbert Dijkgraaf’s policies, consider a hypothetical case study:

Scenario: A research grant is awarded to a local university to study the effects of air pollution on children’s respiratory health. The project supports local jobs, provides valuable data to inform public health policies, and raises awareness of environmental issues.

This example showcases how targeted research funding can generate positive ripple effects throughout local communities,addressing critical issues and fostering economic growth.

Practical Tips for Students Aiming for a Career in Science

Aspiring scientists can take proactive steps to enhance their knowledge, skills, and network. Building a strong foundation through rigorous academic coursework, hands-on research experiences, and mentorship opportunities is essential.

• Focus on STEM Subjects: Excel in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses to build a strong foundation.
• Seek Research Opportunities: Participate in summer research programs, internships, or undergraduate research projects to gain hands-on experience.
• Network with Professionals: Attend conferences,seminars,and workshops to network with established scientists and learn about career paths.
• Develop Communication Skills: Practice communicating complex scientific concepts clearly and effectively through writing, presentations, and outreach activities.

The Importance of International Collaboration in Scientific Progress

Many scientific challenges require research across national boundaries. Creating collaboration by combining resources and expertise to expedite discoveries and broaden the scope for solutions. International Collaboration is essential in facing global challenges like pandemics and climate change.

Key Elements that Make International collaboration Effective

• Cultural Sensitivity: Embracing and understanding diverse perspectives.
• Resource Pool: Broadening the scope to include vast resources.
• Knowledge Synthesis: Integrate a multitude of viewpoints to have a clearer perspective.
• Technology: A combination of technological innovations is essential for progress.

The post Open Letter: Robbert Dijkgraaf – Concerns & Questions appeared first on Archynewsy.

Source link