.
ER Editor: Taking it as read that this below is about ongoing white hat surveillance activity against Epstein through UK as well as US channels, this makes for very interesting reading, especially into highly-placed fixer for the cabal, Keir Starmer, &Co.
Ultimately, we believe, it shows the hidden influence of the Rothschilds into our governments and how those.
********
“None of Us Knew”: The Classified Epstein Intelligence Trail That Runs Straight Through Starmer’s Defense
How Britain’s National Crime Agency, its Washington embassy, and its financial intelligence unit tracked Epstein’s British connections — while Downing Street claims it was in the dark.
SAYER JI
This is Part 5 in a series.
Read, view, and share the X thread dedicated to this breaking story.
Documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act show that Britain’s National Crime Agency was running a classified intelligence operation on Jeffrey Epstein’s British connections from its Washington embassy — beginning nearly five years before Keir Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador and continuing through the period of his appointment.
(ER: Regular readers know we don’t believe the Starmer and Mandelson mentioned here are the originals.)
Starmer says no one knew. The documents say the British government did. The distance between those two statements is the story.
(ER: ‘Starmer’ is lying. Narrative play.)
On December 19, 2024, Starmer appointed Mandelson as British Ambassador to the United States. On September 3, 2025, he fired him. By then, newly surfaced emails had made Mandelson’s position untenable. On January 30, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice released approximately three million pages of documents under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The Metropolitan Police opened an investigation into Mandelson. Morgan McSweeney resigned as Starmer’s Chief of Staff on February 8. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar called publicly for Starmer to step down.
Starmer’s defense has been consistent: “I was lied to.” And: “None of us knew the depth and the darkness.”
Before entering politics, Starmer spent five years as Director of Public Prosecutions — head of the Crown Prosecution Service, the body that prosecutes cases investigated by the National Crime Agency.
The documents tell a different story. They show that the British government — through its National Crime Agency, its embassy in Washington, its financial intelligence unit, and its formal law enforcement channels — possessed classified knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s connections to British institutions and individuals. That intelligence operation was running before Starmer became Labour leader. It was still generating new information when Mandelson was appointed ambassador. The question is not whether the British government knew. The question is what happened to that knowledge.
The Intelligence Pipeline
On January 30, 2020, the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency produced a formal intelligence dissemination designated NCAWAS-20-001. The document was prepared by the NCA’s International Liaison Officer stationed at the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. It was transmitted to the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division. Its subject was Jeffrey Epstein.
This was not a courtesy communication or a diplomatic formality. It was classified intelligence, produced through formal channels, transmitted embassy-to-bureau. A second dissemination, NCAWAS-20-081, followed in June 2020 (EFTA00148680). Internal NCA correspondence references a prior meeting between NCA officers and FBI personnel, indicating that the January dissemination was itself the product of an established coordination process.
The NCA emails released under the EFTA reveal what this pipeline was carrying. The intelligence concerned Epstein’s British connections—his financial infrastructure, his social network within British institutions, and the transactions that connected them. The correspondence shows NCA officers coordinating with the FBI’s New York Field Office, specifically its Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Unit, and routing financial intelligence through the UK Financial Intelligence Unit (UKFIU) to the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
One exchange is particularly revealing. On September 11, 2020, an NCA officer wrote regarding the routing of UK-captured financial intelligence to the FBI (EFTA00149055):
“The assumption at our end previously has been that FBI will know it already given the US financial institutions/entities. However, it may be that the reporting is only being filed in the jurisdiction of the UK due to their legal obligations. If that’s the case I’ll get the UKFIU to put a marker on anything coming in to make sure nothing slips through the gaps.”
The NCA was discovering, in real time, that British financial systems were capturing Epstein-related transactions that the FBI may not have had. The United Kingdom’s own financial surveillance infrastructure—the system that monitors suspicious transactions filed by banks operating under UK jurisdiction—was generating intelligence about Epstein’s network that American authorities potentially lacked.
The NCA officer’s proposed solution was to flag all incoming Epstein-related financial intelligence for immediate forwarding. This was not a one-off tip. It was the establishment of a standing mechanism for routing British-captured financial intelligence about Epstein’s operations to the FBI.
What the Pipeline Was Carrying
The NCA emails reveal the scope of what British intelligence had captured.
Among the subjects discussed in the NCA-FBI correspondence was the case designated “IVEAGH”—a reference to Miranda, Countess of Iveagh, née Guinness, whose connections to Epstein were under active investigation. The NCA’s August 2020 emails (EFTA00148721) show officers discussing coordination with the NSPCC—the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—regarding whether a parallel British investigation would affect FBI operations. This indicates the NCA was aware of potential child safeguarding dimensions within Epstein’s British network, not merely financial irregularities.
The same email chain contains a partially unredacted reference to financial intelligence captured on “Epstein’s former pilot.” UK financial systems were capturing transaction data on individuals within Epstein’s immediate operational circle—people who facilitated the logistics of his activities—and this intelligence was being routed to the FBI through the NCA. British banks, operating under UK reporting obligations, were filing suspicious activity reports on Epstein-adjacent transactions that American institutions may not have flagged.
The reference number DP214135, which appears across multiple documents in the chain, indicates this was a catalogued, tracked intelligence matter—not informal cooperation but a formally managed case with its own institutional paper trail within the NCA.
The Timeline
The NCA’s intelligence pipeline was operational from at least January 2020. (ER: Likely well before.) The documents show active coordination through September 2020 and, as subsequent records demonstrate, the financial intelligence it generated was still being managed by the FBI as late as April 2023.
Keir Starmer became leader of the Labour Party on April 4, 2020—three months after the NCA’s first formal Epstein dissemination from the British Embassy. (ER: v2.0)
But the timeline extends further back. From 2008 to 2013, Starmer served as Director of Public Prosecutions — head of the Crown Prosecution Service, the organization that prosecutes all cases investigated by the NCA and its predecessor, the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The DPP’s relationship with the NCA is not advisory. Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the DPP holds formal investigatory powers that are physically executed by NCA officers: the DPP issues disclosure notices; NCA staff conduct the interviews. The DPP authorizes search warrants; NCA officers carry them out. The CPS’s specialist Serious Economic, Organised Crime and International Directorate exists specifically to handle NCA-investigated cases. Starmer himself acknowledged in 2013 that SOCA was one of the agencies feeding cases directly into his office. The man who says “none of us knew” spent five years running the institution structurally designed to know.
This is not the first time Starmer has claimed that institutional knowledge held by the CPS never reached him. In January 2024, following ITV’s dramatization of the Post Office Horizon scandal, Starmer faced questions about why the CPS prosecuted sub-postmasters based on data from a system already known to be faulty — while he was DPP. The CPS brought at least eleven Horizon-related prosecutions during Starmer’s tenure, including the case of Seema Misra, a sub-postmistress convicted and jailed in 2010 while pregnant — a conviction quashed in 2021 after it emerged the Post Office had concealed evidence of Horizon’s defects. Starmer said he “wasn’t aware” of the cases. The CPS said it had destroyed the relevant records. Under Section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act, the DPP holds the statutory power to take over any private prosecution and discontinue it — a power Starmer did not exercise despite public reporting on Horizon’s failures as early as 2009. The pattern is consistent: institutional knowledge existed within the system Starmer led, Starmer says it never reached him, and the records that might confirm or deny that claim have been destroyed.
Peter Mandelson was appointed Ambassador to the United States in December 2024—nearly five years after the NCA began its classified intelligence operation on Epstein’s British connections.
Any appointment to a post as sensitive as the Washington ambassadorship requires security vetting. Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was already a matter of extensive public record. The question that the NCA documents raise is not whether the vetting process should have examined Mandelson’s Epstein connections—that much is obvious—but whether it accessed the United Kingdom’s own classified intelligence on those connections.
It is possible, and indeed standard practice, for operational intelligence to be compartmentalized—held within the agency conducting the investigation and not automatically shared with other parts of government, including those responsible for political appointments. The UK’s vetting system does not necessarily draw on every classified investigation across every agency. If that compartmentalization functioned as designed, it would mean that the NCA’s Epstein intelligence remained within the NCA and was not surfaced during Mandelson’s vetting. That possibility does not resolve the problem. It reframes it.
Compartmentalization is designed to protect active operations from political interference — not to shield an incoming prime minister from his own government’s intelligence during a sensitive ambassadorial appointment. And in Starmer’s case, the institutional distance is unusually short. He did not merely lead the Labour Party while the NCA ran its Epstein operation. He previously led the prosecution service that works hand-in-glove with the NCA as a matter of statutory design. The DPP and the NCA do not merely cooperate — they share investigatory powers under the same statute. Due diligence is not incidental to that role. It is the role.
If the vetting process accessed the NCA’s intelligence, then the British government appointed Mandelson with knowledge of what that intelligence contained. If the vetting process did not access the NCA’s intelligence—if the UK’s own classified investigation into Epstein’s British connections was excluded from the security vetting of his most prominent British associate—then the vetting system failed to surface exactly the kind of information it exists to find.
Either answer is serious. Both contradict Starmer’s claim that “none of us knew.” The British government’s own agencies possessed the knowledge. The question is whether it reached the people who made the decision—and if not, why not.
The Financial Trail, 2023
The intelligence pipeline did not end with the NCA’s 2020 operations. Documents released under the EFTA show the financial surveillance apparatus generating and managing Epstein-related intelligence through at least April 2023.
On Friday, March 24, 2023, the Chief Counsel of FinCEN personally contacted the FBI’s FinCEN Liaison Officer about an urgent matter. The subject was the disclosure of Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) related to Jeffrey Epstein in civil litigation pending in the Southern District of New York: Doe v. JP Morgan Chase, Doe v. Deutsche Bank, and USVI v. JP Morgan (EFTA00162401).
The scale was extraordinary. FinCEN was asking the FBI to deconflict the release of SARs against an active investigation designated NY-3027571—the Epstein investigation file. The names requiring deconfliction arrived in multiple tranches: an initial batch delivered March 27, supplemental names on March 28 and 29 from Deutsche Bank filings, and ten additional names on April 4 (EFTA00162415). The FBI’s FinCEN unit—staffed, as the emails reveal, by just two employees handling all FinCEN liaison matters—was overwhelmed. “This is a long list, it will take time,” the liaison officer wrote. “It will not be ready by COB today.”
The entities named in the unredacted portions of the deconfliction list included Nautilus Inc, Sotheby’s, and Robert Trivers, along with forty-two other names that remain redacted. A supplemental request on April 18 added Haywood Securities Inc, George Schidlovsky, Sol Global Investments, AVL Canada, and IGY-AYH St. Thomas Holdings, LLC (EFTA00162401).
One detail in the FinCEN correspondence is critical for the timeline. The Chief Counsel’s office explained that “many of the involved SARs referred to transactions that took place over a decade ago, though some of the reports themselves were not filed until roughly a decade later, after Epstein’s arrest” (EFTA00144231). Financial institutions were filing retrospective suspicious activity reports on Epstein-related transactions well into the 2020s. The financial surveillance system was not merely reviewing old records—it was generating new reports about historical Epstein network transactions years after his death. (ER: Alleged.)
The FBI’s response, after consultation with the New York field office and SDNY, was to object to the release of all forty-five names—not just those connected to the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal, but every name on the list (EFTA00162415). When the FinCEN liaison asked whether the objection covered “just Maxwell or all the 45 names,” the answer was unequivocal: “The objection will be for all the names.”
This financial intelligence apparatus—the same system that the NCA had been feeding British-captured transaction data into since 2020—was actively processing Epstein-related information eighteen months before Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador.
In summary, the Epstein case did not end in 2019. His financial network remained under active review and legal protection as recently as 2023.
What the Switchboard Looked Like
The NCA documents show what the British government’s agencies knew. The Epstein correspondence released under the EFTA shows what they were looking at.
The emails document a pattern in which a sitting cabinet minister transmitted contemporaneous details of British government business to Epstein—and in which Epstein responded with questions oriented toward extracting financial or strategic value from the information he received.
The coalition negotiations, May 2010. On May 6, 2010, Britain held a general election that produced a hung parliament. Over the following days, Gordon Brown—with Mandelson at his side as Business Secretary and de facto deputy prime minister—conducted secret negotiations with Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg about the formation of a coalition government. These were among the most sensitive political discussions in a generation, conducted under conditions of extreme secrecy. Mandelson was reporting them to Jeffrey Epstein as they happened.
On May 9, Epstein emailed Mandelson: “any closer.” Mandelson replied from his BlackBerry: “Only to oblivion. GB now having ‘secret’ talks with Clegg in Foreign Office..”(EFTA02425507) Epstein wrote back: “sources tell me 500 b euro bailout, almost complete.” (EFTA02031332) Later that evening, Mandelson texted: “Sd be announced tonight.” Then: “Just leaving No10..will call.” (EFTA02425165)
The next morning, May 10, Epstein emailed Mandelson: “??” Mandelson replied: “Finally got him to go today…”—a reference to Brown’s resignation as Prime Minister later that day. (EFTA00759936) Mandelson then provided further detail: “Including the underground walk from no10 to the Ministry of Defence with GB for secret late night talk with Libs..” Epstein’s response: “i have faith, the value of some chapters in your book should now increase.” (EFTA00892100)
The sequence speaks for itself. A registered sex offender emails a sitting cabinet minister asking about the progress of coalition negotiations. The cabinet minister replies from inside Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence, providing contemporaneous details of secret government business. Epstein cross-references the political information with financial intelligence from his own sources—a €500 billion European bailout—and assesses the commercial implications of what he is being told.
The Prime Minister’s briefing, June 2009. On June 13, 2009, Mandelson forwarded to Epstein a briefing note that had been sent directly to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The note, authored by Nick Butler and addressed “Dear Gordon,” assessed business confidence and the economic outlook for FTSE 100 companies. It had been copied to Jeremy Heywood, then Permanent Secretary at No. 10 Downing Street and later Cabinet Secretary, as well as Shriti Vadera and a Duty Clerk. Mandelson’s comment when forwarding it to Epstein: “Interesting note that’s gone to the PM.” (EFTA00750065)
Epstein’s reply was three words: “What salable assets?”
Epstein’s response is notable. A note about FTSE 100 company performance and business confidence—the kind of macro-economic intelligence that moves markets—was forwarded to a registered sex offender with active financial interests, and his immediate question concerned what could be bought or sold on the basis of it. The exchange demonstrates the transmission of contemporaneous government information to Epstein, who responded with financially oriented questions.
Government discussions, communicated through Prince Andrew. EFTA02414840 documents Prince Andrew communicating internal government discussions to Epstein—informing him about ministerial inquiries being raised within the British government regarding Epstein’s network. The documents show a member of the Royal Family relaying details of government deliberations to a registered sex offender.
Official communications systems. EFTA02318530 shows coordination involving the Royal Household conducted through official government email systems. These communications occurred on systems that are ordinarily subject to government record-keeping protocols.
The 71st Street convergence, December 2010. EFTA02409950 documents a December 2010 gathering at Epstein’s East 71st Street residence that brought together multiple strands of his British network—seven months after Mandelson was texting Epstein from inside Downing Street during the coalition negotiations, and two years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction.
This is what the NCA was investigating. This is what the financial intelligence pipeline was tracking. And this is what was known, at a classified level, within the British government’s own agencies when Peter Mandelson was appointed to represent the United Kingdom in Washington.
The embassy was not merely a conduit for classified intelligence about Epstein. It was a location Epstein himself accessed. On September 18, 2015 — seven years after his conviction — Epstein emailed staff from the British Embassy in Washington, directing the delivery of a case of Rothschild wine to photographer Antoine Verglas’s SoHo studio. His staff were instructed to remove any attached cards from Rothschild and replace them with a note on ‘Jeffrey’s stationary’ from ‘the closet in the Oval Office’ (EFTA00339729). A registered sex offender, conducting Rothschild-connected business from inside the same British Embassy that would later house the NCA liaison officer transmitting classified intelligence about his network to the FBI.
The Financial Intermediary, 2016
The documents do not only show Epstein receiving British government information. They show him operating as a transatlantic financial intermediary for European banking dynasties years after his conviction—the kind of activity that generates exactly the suspicious transaction reports the NCA and FinCEN were later tracking.
On January 28, 2016—eight years after his conviction and registration as a sex offender—Epstein was brokering the acquisition of the Rockefeller & Co. commercial brand with Ariane de Rothschild, the head of Edmond de Rothschild Group (EFTA02473925). The email exchange shows Rothschild reporting to Epstein on conversations with “Jacob”—likely Jacob Rothschild—about the appropriate valuation: “Speaking with Jacob… Says number for Rockefeller should start with a 2… Humm..” Rothschild confirmed willingness to sell the commercial brand and majority capital.
In the same correspondence, Epstein conducted what reads as contingency planning for Rothschild’s personal and financial affairs. He wrote: “If something were to happen to you… who do i call? who is in charge… bank, family… money, things… your assst? cynthina? henri? mom, brother… the executor of your will?? (who). main doctor?… who defends lawsuits nadine. etc.”
The documents show a registered sex offender, eight years after his conviction, facilitating discussions about a major financial transaction between two of the world’s most prominent banking families while simultaneously managing intimate details of personal estate planning. It is precisely this kind of continued high-value financial activity that triggers suspicious activity reporting by financial institutions. The retrospective SARs that banks filed “roughly a decade later, after Epstein’s arrest,” as the FinCEN documents note, covered transactions from this period.
What Happens When a Country Follows the Evidence
The United Kingdom was not the only European country whose government was feeding Epstein-related information to American prosecutors in early 2020.
On December 17, 2019, Hilde Stoltenberg, Norway’s Liaison Prosecutor at Eurojust in The Hague, transmitted a formal communication to the U.S. Department of Justice. The information came from the Norwegian Director of Public Prosecution, acting on behalf of Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The subject was the International Peace Institute in New York and donations from Jeffrey Epstein. The information had been provided to a Norwegian Foreign Ministry employee by an unidentified woman whose identity, Stoltenberg wrote, “will upon request be given to your HA” (EFTA00101284).
The DOJ Liaison Prosecutor stationed at Eurojust—an Assistant U.S. Attorney from Baltimore on detail to the Office of International Affairs—forwarded the information to the SDNY. On January 9, 2020, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District confirmed receipt: “We’ll incorporate it into our investigation and/or follow up as appropriate.”
The timing is significant. Norway’s intelligence arrived at the SDNY in the same window as the NCA’s first formal dissemination from the British Embassy. Two European governments were simultaneously channeling Epstein-related information into the American justice system through separate institutional pathways—Norway through Eurojust in The Hague, the United Kingdom through its embassy in Washington—and both arrived at the same destination in January 2020.
What happened next in each country tells the story.
On February 6, 2026, following the DOJ’s release of approximately three million pages under the EFTA, Norway’s Økokrim—its dedicated economic crimes prosecution unit—opened a criminal investigation into former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland on suspicion of aggravated corruption linked to Epstein. (ER: The application of EO 13818 against global corruption and crimes against humanity, much earlier, could have taken out Jagland already.) The released documents showed that Jagland had planned a family trip to Epstein’s island in 2014, stayed at Epstein’s properties in New York and Paris in 2015 and 2018, and asked Epstein for financial assistance to purchase a home. On February 11, 2026, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers unanimously waived Jagland’s diplomatic immunity, clearing the way for prosecution—the first time the institution has revoked a former leader’s protections. Norway’s former ambassador to Jordan resigned after reports that Epstein left $10 million to her children in a will drawn up shortly before his death. The head of the World Economic Forum, Norway’s former foreign minister Borge Brende, faces investigation by a WEF risk committee over his documented dinners and communications with Epstein.
[Sources: Council of Europe Committee of Ministers press release, February 11, 2026; Al Jazeera, February 6, 2026; PBS NewsHour, February 11, 2026.]
Norway followed the evidence. Its prosecutors acted. Its institutions waived immunity. Its officials faced consequences.
The United Kingdom appointed Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States
What the Documents Show
The documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act establish the following, each point supported by primary source material released by the U.S. Department of Justice:
The United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency operated a classified intelligence channel from the British Embassy in Washington to the FBI, transmitting intelligence on Epstein’s British connections, beginning no later than January 2020 and continuing through at least September 2020.
That channel carried substantive intelligence—financial transaction data, information about Epstein’s operational associates, and material relevant to child safeguarding investigations—not merely administrative coordination.
British financial systems were capturing Epstein-related transactions that American authorities may not have possessed, and the NCA moved to establish a standing mechanism for routing that intelligence to the FBI.
The financial intelligence apparatus was still actively processing Epstein-related material in April 2023, with the FBI deconflicting forty-five names against an active investigation file and financial institutions filing retrospective suspicious activity reports on Epstein-era transactions.
Concurrently, EFTA documents show that while this classified intelligence was accumulating, Epstein had been receiving British government information through multiple channels for years—including a sitting cabinet minister texting him from inside Downing Street during secret coalition negotiations and forwarding PM briefing notes on economic conditions, to which Epstein responded with financially actionable questions.
As late as January 2016, Epstein was facilitating financial discussions between European banking dynasties—precisely the kind of activity that generated the suspicious transaction reports the NCA and FinCEN were later processing.
The documents do not establish that any individual named in this article committed a criminal offense in connection with these intelligence flows. They do, however, raise institutional questions regarding information management, vetting procedures, and the handling of classified intelligence about Epstein’s British connections during a period when his most prominent British associate was being appointed to the country’s most sensitive diplomatic post.
Keir Starmer became Labour leader in April 2020, three months after the NCA channel began operating. Peter Mandelson was appointed ambassador in December 2024, nearly five years into the classified operation. Either the intelligence reached the people who made the appointment, or the systems designed to surface such intelligence during vetting failed to do so. In either case, the claim that “none of us knew” is a claim about what reached Downing Street—not about what the British government’s own agencies possessed.
Starmer says no one knew. The documents say the British government did. Either the intelligence reached the people who made the appointment, or the systems that exist to surface exactly this kind of information failed at exactly the moment they mattered most. Both possibilities demand an answer. Neither has received one.
Note on sources and methods: This article relies on documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) and materials released by the U.S. House of Representatives through its oversight function. All EFTA reference numbers correspond to documents in the public DOJ release. Email correspondence is quoted directly from released documents; all quoted language is reproduced as it appears in the originals. Current events in the Norway section are sourced to official institutional statements and named news reporting as cited. Where this article draws analytical conclusions from the documentary record—such as characterizing the pattern of information flow as a “switchboard” or describing the cumulative effect of documented contacts—those conclusions are identified as the author’s analysis and are distinguished from the factual content of the documents themselves. This article does not allege criminal conduct by any living person. All individuals referenced are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing unless and until proven otherwise in a court of law.
Share the X post dedicated to this article.
Source
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply