Vaccine manufacture full interview

well welcome to this talk and I'm delighted to welcome Josh gesko and uh in the north of England it's getting quite cold now but it looks a bit warmer where you are Josh is it yeah it is I'm in Tel Aviv it's 30 degrees today we're running some of that cold weather can you can you can send it down this way and I wouldn't mind some of your warm weather so you're an academic Josh at a Hebrew University but basically you've got links with the states as well though and um you've been studying some pretty interesting things and the first one we wanted to talk about is the um the different processes that were used in the production of the fisa vaccine now there seems to be process one and process two and this has got particular processes we used in the trials just give us a bit of background on that Josh if you don't mind please okay yeah sure so the key Point here is that in the clinical trial that Pfizer bioentech ran on their covid vaccine they used uh vaccine doses that were made with one manufacturing process what you refer to as process one but what was given to the public after the trial was not the same type of doses instead they used a different manufacturing process and upscale manufacturing process they call Process two and that was what everybody received when they got vaccinated and now now the question is well what's the difference between these two processes does it matter and and and it probably does matter a lot and we and I can walk you through some of the evidence of why we think it matters but just to give you sort of the general background and I don't know all of the technical details of this I know enough to kind of understand it but we all have uh learned about peace so what do you need to do to make an R an mRNA vaccine you need to create you need to generate mRNA how do you do that well mRNA is like a copy of a partial part of a strand of DNA so you need DNA as sort of your backbone template that you can then create mRNA off of that DNA okay so where do you get that DNA from well you can with the process one they were basically using a PCR process to duplicate DNA right that's what they do with with PCR they want to check do you have any of any any of this uh uh remnant of DNA in your nose that we can say was you know covet was SARS cov2 or whatever right so they replicate it right that's the whole idea behind the PCR and it's relatively clean to do it that way and they were also using a very very high quality uh system using these um magnetic these sort of magnetic beads to take out any impurities after that PCR process was used again to create the template where then they you know they they use that to generate the Mr the MRNA in process two they use a different method to generate the Mr the DNA backbone okay where they basically have a DNA template that they've put into this thing called a plasmid which is part of a bacteria okay and so when the bacteria well the plasmids can duplicate and then the bacteria also duplicates and it turns out to be a far more cost effective scalable way you know you can just have instead of like having to put in a PCR machine you just have these big Vats of I don't know actually how big they are but you know you have these bats of of bacteria growing and they replicate very very quickly and then you you basically you take the plasmids and you you take their DNA and you you make it they make it linear instead of like wrapped up and then they use that to to generate the MRNA but after that point what they need to do is they have the plasmid DNA and they have the bacteria still in that goo and they need to clean that out and purify it and that's where they've seem to have done a terrible job and I don't know if you've been following any of the revelations that are coming out where more and more researchers around the world are replicating this finding that there are high levels of this plasmid DNA remnants in the vials of the Pfizer vaccine that have been tested in addition to that we know from Pfizer's own documents that they've submitted to various regulatory agencies that there's uh there's some residual lipopolysaccharide they are otherwise known as endotoxin this is the membrane so what is the bacteria that they use for you know duplicating this it's E coli bacteria and um which is a type of bacteria that's known as gram-negative bacteria and the membranes of gram-negative bacteria are highly inflammatory they're called endotoxin for a reason right um and so there are higher levels um of this endotoxin in the process to vials and again this is based on what we know from Pfizer's own filings um to the regulator see if I've got this right so far uh Josh if I just run this past you so the process one they synthesize the DNA I assume synthesize it in the right basis in the right order and then they multiply the amount of DNA with a PCR process now I'm not a forensic specialist but I think we probably do this in in forensics where there's a tiny amount of DNA found at a crime scene for example or in an archaeological specimen which is a fascinating field and they're able to multiply up the amount of DNA to so they've got enough to sort of be able to recognize it so they use this duplication process and that PCR process it's the same as just used in testing where you duplicate the amount of RNA that's present and of course there's a debate about that and how much it should be duplicated and whether that can give rise to false positive results of course but but leaving that aside so that here the The increased amount of DNA they use that DNA to make the RNA so the DNA is the code to make the RNA so it's DNA makes RNA makes protein is the is the way it goes in biology and that's trial process one but trial process two sounds a bit more like making beer to me um you uh you push it put it all in some big vat instead of using yeast though you use bacterium E coli bacteria we believe we know we know a lot about their manufacturing method and a lot of it came through the EMA data breach uh other other writings about it there's Publications we we know that's good so the process too you kind of make a batch now a plasmid is basically a way for transfer and genetic material from one bacterium to another as far as I understand it I think that's great yeah yeah so they're using this kind of way the DNA is in the plasmid and uh that means you've got bacterial components there as well and we don't want uh DNA from the plasmid and we're doing what other things like like bits of cell membrane left over right um I would imagine if you gave if you did have cell membrane in any injection we're not saying the cell membrane in this but if you did have gum negative cells or membrane and injection that would make you feel pretty rough for a period of time it could and it's toxic about that later how that might be linked to some of the some of the uh Adverse Events that came up and have been um you know uh written up in the mainstream Academic Press that we didn't see hardly at all in the trials so we could talk about that later if you want indeed now I've got that summary roughly right Josh it's not that summary exactly right and okay before we get past this I want to make this point very clear is that yeah when you're when you're making a biological uh medical product or biologic the process is crucial in fact some would some people say the the process is the product because you're dealing with these very complex you know biochemical interactions large molecules I'll give you an example have you ever heard of the cutter incident no please tell me the cutter incident and this there was a book written by one of the you know High Priests of vaccinology in the U.S Paul offit on this topic but what happened the cutter incident happened with the original polio vaccines in the 1950s so Jonas Salk you know created this polio vaccine they ran a trial on about 2 million children it was very successful and so then they turned it over to a few different labs and they said okay now we need to make a bunch of this stuff but they didn't provide them with the precise directions on how to exactly replicate salk's process and so what happened in the cutter laboratory they were making vaccines that had live polio virus and when they injected them into kids they got polio there were over 200 000 kids who got a short-lived polio a few hundred who got permanent polio and a few a few kids who actually died okay this is not conspiracy theory this is not anti-vax mythology you know this is this is accepted history and one of the key lessons that was learned uh from that is yeah when you're dealing with something complicated like a vaccine the biological drug you need to be very precise about the method and once you change the method you change the product and you can't just assume that it's going to have the same effect uh on people so you need to do another uh clinical trial on your new product it's not the same product I think we should need to start with the protocol change that they made to the study in October early October of 2020. where they said they said they were going to test the process to uh doses what they said is we're gonna we're gonna compare we're gonna test them on 250 about 250 people per process 2 lot but not just any people they were only going to test them on people between the ages of 16 and 55. so if you're over 55 they never intended to test this on them anyway okay and the statement of 250 per lot is somewhat ambiguous however we now have access to the clinical trial data and other documents uh submitted to the FDA and triangulating those documents what we were able to find was that only 252 people were ever tested with process two jobs in the Pfizer trial all of them with one law there was one process two law that they tested prior to the emergency youth youth authorization in December now they had already told The Regulators that they were not gonna not planning to be able to include any of that data or analysis uh in the submission for the Emergency youth authorization use authorization but they did say they were going to have it sometime around January or February now again they said in their protocol we're going to be comparing 252 250 people per lot without specifying actually how many Lots they were going to test now we know they only tested it on 250. so how many how many is in a lot normally here Josh oh you can have thousands of doses in a lot um so let me just say let me see if I've Got The Story So Far So they realize that there was a potential issue rightly changing from process one to process two so in the clinical trial they included wanted to include some process too um vaccines from process to batch and they included some of those and and the idea was that they could then compare the efficacy and the the reactogenicity presumably between between the two doses which which for a clinical trial seems pretty reasonable and it also sounds like Pfizer were quite reasonable in being upfront with The Regulators on this the The Regulators knew this The Regulators knew that I believe it was The Regulators that pushed them to add this to the uh to the protocol because we we we do have we have some sort of behind the scenes documents that were part of the data breach from the EMA that occurred in I believe it was January 2021 where there were five there was a a hack and files were released and what we can see is that the the right the EMA was concerned about the fact that the Integrity of the MRNA in this process to uh batches was lower than the Integrity of the MRNA in the earlier process one doses so what does integrity mean it means you're trying to make full length mRNA to create a spike protein um and so if that isn't a hundred percent you have lower Integrity so um you know what percent of the MRNA in your dose has the Mr has the code that you want and what percent you know is less than that is some fraction is some you know and um and so the earlier process one was they were creating doses with something like 70 to 80 percent integrity and in this newer these newer batches they were their integrity went down to about 50 to 60 percent uh so The Regulators were concerned about that and in fact um the Pfizer was ever able to really solve that problem there is some evidence that they were able to improve the Integrity somewhat in later later iterations um but the regulator basically changed the you know they basically moved the bar they set the bar Lower for fives and they said oh well if you can't you know get your integrity up to 65 70 percent we'll let you go down to you know 50 55 percent it was no basis for that as far as We Know by the way as far as we have seen there is no evidence that Pfizer ever did any pre-clinical studies on the process to doses meaning it was never tested in animals and apparently it was only ever tested in 252 people as part of their clinical trial now whatever phase three three that was the phase three process wasn't it right and they said well we're going to compare the uh the Adverse Events and the immunogenicity of these new doses what is the immunogenicity it's the antibody response that they provoke so they said we're gonna do 250 people per lot we're gonna compare it to people who got a process want we're going to take 250 people who got processed one Doses and we're going to compare them okay um did they ever do that study so recently a um a Freedom of Information Act request to the mahra came back where the mhra said that Pfizer updated their protocol again in September 2022 saying we are no longer going to do this comparison which they were supposed to do a year and a half earlier so we're we're no longer going to do this comparison because the vaccine has been given out to so many people and we see that it's safe and we don't need to worry about it etc etc okay um and the MRI and the mhra accepted that they accepted that so this is the magra mhra in the UK Richardson Healthcare products regulatory agency that's right how did this go down with The Regulators in the states we don't know I mean we have so there was a you know a huge tranche of data released by the FDA that is these are all of the documents that were submitted by Pfizer for the for for the approval of the vaccines and we haven't seen any evidence in any of those documents we're talking about thousands of pages maybe even millions of pages of documents having seen any evidence that they submitted those results um to Pfizer now but one of the things that we do have from that tranche of data is the actual subject level data from the clinical trial itself and what that means is that for every individual in the trial we have all of the data that Pfizer used for all of its analyzes of Adverse Events of um Effectiveness you know the PCR testing that they did and the symptoms that were reported and we have Oracle blood test results and everything right so we can actually go through that data and I have done that and looked at okay we know we've we we're pretty sure we know who this 252 people are and if you want I can tell you how we think we know who those people were but we had so we have these 252 people now let's look well what is the what was their immunogenicity okay so there's how well did the vaccine work yeah right like what kind of antibody response did they did it uh did the vaccine uh produce in people well uh there are only four people who got those processed two doses that they checked their antibody response at all um say that last bit again sorry there were only four people of those 252 that they tested their blood one month after they got their second dose to see if they had any um antibody um which they didn't test it really before uh before they were given the doses and so we don't know you know maybe they had some kind of immunity prior to that but putting that aside let's say their antibody response was due uh to the vaccine well guess what one of the four didn't have an antibody response so and um the four people that were tested were all age 22 and younger they were between the ages of 16 and 22. right and this was again a test that was only ever done on people between the ages of 16 and 55. so if the vaccine is supposed to be mainly or at least preferentially to be used to protect the elderly you would think that you would preferentially want to test the immunogenicity and the safety of these new process of this you know these new process patches you'd want to test them on the elderly population well not only did they never do that they never planned to do that they had no intention of doing that in terms of the safety you know this idea of comparing these 252 people who got it to some randomly selected 250 other you know treatment subjects who got the process one doses that was what Pfizer said they were going to do well instead of doing that I just compared them to everybody um all of not every all of the other treatment subjects that got um process one doses I controlled for some variables uh that you know that might differ like age and sex and some and some comorbidities and things like that and I found that the adverse event rate in that comparison was much higher uh for those people who got those processed two doses then for the other treatment subjects who had only gotten the process one doses when you when you're doing a clinical trial I mean if it was your Zippo that were getting these process two doses it's almost as if I mean how is that compatible with randomization and double blind well I mean they didn't know they were getting processed presumably they didn't know that they were getting processed two doses and the people on the ground shouldn't necessarily have known that they well actually I'll tell you something you know the the the the the Pfizer clinical trial was never double blind it was never they never said it was going to be double blind what they said is going to be Observer blinded which basically means that I mean the intention of that was that the person that is administering the vaccine knows who's getting the vaccine and who isn't because the special preparation that's involved in these vaccines with the cold chain and everything else he said well the people were going to be injecting this are going to know that who they're injecting now it turns out if you go through the Pfizer protocol there were a lot of other people a lot of other Personnel involved who were never supposed to be blinded as well so I call it the the Swiss cheese method of blinding um but it is possible that the people that were administering the doses and some of the administrators knew that this group of people were getting the process to dose um you know it's possible otherwise it's just coincidence that these younger people got the process to dose it's just coincidence that who got it the the younger people ended up getting the process to dose or at least the four that were tested were all younger right well so they have like so they they they have two age groups um they that they were recruiting within two different age groups different numbers of people so they had the 16 to 55 and then they have the over 55 group so they said okay well we're only going to give this this was planned this was an accidental we're only gonna try these out on this younger group um yeah so you're right I mean they must have known that they were giving the you know they had to select this a younger group for this special batch of uh vaccines there were four sites that were sent this this uh doses from this process two batch that they were using and do we know the numbers of these batches are we able to follow that through because I'm recording I recall the uh the Danish study where they looked at different batches and different uh rates of adverse reactions as I remember it so yeah we have a um there's a there's a document that shows which batches were sent to which sites and there's there's two different documents one of them um was produced on November 19th 2020 and it shows four sites received batch ej0553 no I'm sorry uh eea493 um that's the process too much easy a493 you know I I've seen this number a million times I can't remember I'm pretty sure it's easy a493 I could look it up uh it's in the the vmj um the bmj uh rapid response and later another document shows that there was another batch ej0553 um that was also sent to four different sites it would have had to have been after November 19th and basically all of the sites were done recruiting at that point it's possible that there might have been a dozen people in the clinical trial they were given doses from that batch but not more than not more than than that um I I we're not entirely sure where that other process 2 batch went it might have gone to so you know they started in mid-December they took people that were in the placebo group and they started giving them real vaccine so it might have been that some of those people received doses from that other process too lot again ej0553 we also know now that they used it for the Adolescent trial um so there would have maybe have been some young teenagers getting that they were young teenagers getting those processed two doses um and by the way ej0553 was was the first batch that the UK um Acquired and that was the first batch that they rolled out across the population and that was the process one or process too it's a pro process too lot there were no process one Lodge that were given to the public as part of the actual administration of the vaccine the process won only people in the clinical trial got processed one lot all of the original treatment subjects except for those 252 got process one Lots when the placebo subject started getting real vaccines there it becomes a little bit murky some of them might have gotten processed to La Jabs some of them seem to have gotten process one there's a lot of nuances there that I don't want to go into we do know and this is interesting from Pfizer's own clinical study report submitted to the FDA they found that the adverse event rate both all Adverse Events serious Adverse Events and Adverse Events of special interest were all higher in the placebo group after they got the actual vaccine than they were among the original treatment subjects quite a bit higher in fact and we don't know why that is and we can speculate but until we can get more information that wasn't released as part of the FDA files that we've got our hands on for for until then we're in the dark it does seem a bit it doesn't seem a bit strange that this catch-up group had a different rate of adverse reactions I mean what I found particularly strange is that in the clinical study report the in Pfizer actually says as expected they have higher rates and then you start thinking well why were they expecting them to have a higher rate and they're there you know I could I can start to think of reasons so one reason that they might have expected that is oh are we speculating now Josh yeah we're speculating but you know I mean you could my but my speculation gives Pfizer you're not a quick speculate but as long as it's clear we are speculating we are speculating yes yeah yeah I mean what I mean to give fisa the benefit of Doubt like if you because they've been on blinded and they know that they're getting the actual vaccine they may be more likely to report an adverse event right that would be sort of an innocent explanation for why this is the case we know that many of those sites after November 19th they got batches that appear to be process one but they have slightly different numbers so there might have been something to do with a process one of the things that we point out in the bmj rapid response is that all of this evidence the process one process two the you know placebo group and versus the normal one and the the Denmark study that you talked about some some weeks ago um they all and there's another document we need to mention they all point to variability across Lots um in the you know potential for the vaccines to cause Adverse Events and it's quite possible that this process to manufacturing method only makes that worse only increases you know only lends itself to increasing the variability across across Lots so this this proposed lot variability from the Danish study which is proposed in that study we don't know it for sure but that could be due to more variation within the process to manufacturing process compared to the the phase one so the phase one will give a more consistent products potentially yes yeah so and there are many reasons to you know we could again I'm not an expert on all of the biology and the manufacturing uh methods that are involved but um from people I've spoken to it seems like it's a good possibility um again speculating we're speculating here you know I mentioned that that in the UK they gave the the ej0553 Lots as you know part of the first one and in fact everybody in the UK and around the world got these process two lots now nobody was informed about this I mean I'm sure you didn't hear anything about this and even though it's in the Pfizer protocol nobody was told that they're actually getting a product that is different than the one that the uh clinical trial was run on and so what that means essentially is that nobody could have given informed consent because they were kept in the dark about this right you could have followed every end all of the ins and outs of the clinical trial reports you could have read that New England Journal of Medicine study you could have known about the relative risk versus the absolute risk everything and you still would have been in the dark you still would not have been able to give your full informed consent and that's that's a real egregious um a violation of of people's basic you know rights and dignity under established uh treaties and the Nuremberg code you know that's what I did Josh I I looked at the Pfizer reports at the time I looked at the initial trial data and um I found it convincing it was it I I had I had two Pfizer vaccines in the moderna vaccine based on that and now when it is where now it appears that the clinical trials I was reading was a different product of what I was injected with that makes me feel this is not speculating I feel I feel pretty bad about that um Furious certainly but uh it's it's well it's just very concerning that as you say I it appears I didn't give informed consent it's um yeah I I feel I feel quite bad about that it's uh well you know I mean you could make the argument that you were you were defrauded right there is a are you familiar with the the term bait and switch no this is a this is a sales tactic where you advertise some amazing product you advertise and made this amazing product somebody comes into the store to buy it and you say well actually we're all out of that but we've got this other thing that's just just like it that we can give you right which is probably of lesser quality uh more profitable for the person selling it to you right this is a fraudulent business practice right now I we I don't want to we could go you know we don't even have to go so far as to say that this is actually what Pfizer willingly and knowingly did but I could definitely see the similarities here no you're only explaining to me what bait and switch means that's all but but now you explain that I have worked in certain countries where I have come across this practice yeah but no that is um yeah you know informed consent is just so crucial isn't it oh yeah no to me personally and and I am no I mean I I was making videos based on this data at the time that that's even more distressing than the risk to me personally um I am uh I am on several different I'm ahead of the Ethics Committee at my Institute I sit on a a another Ethics Committee you know in institutional review board at the University and we take informed consent very very seriously and even for really inconspicuous sorts of things like if I'm just going to want to have an interview I want to interview you for a project just to find out about your life I have to go through a whole rigmarole of reading you uh your rights in a sense to tell you uh look you know you're you're doing this you know this is what the the subject is about and if you want to stop at the study at any time you can and if you want to you know don't want to answer my question I mean we go we bend over backwards to ensure people are giving us their informed consent even in the most incons you know sort of inconsequential um settings um and here the the the the consequences are potentially very very very serious yeah yeah yeah well Josh that's uh that certainly got me up to speed on the between the batch one and the batch two and some of the implications of that um anything else you want to add or should we leave do you want to leave that there I think that's basically yeah I would like to add something if you don't mind please please one of the things that you hear when people are talking about Adverse Events is what we didn't observe that in the trial we didn't observe that in the trial and so we don't have any reason to suspect that this is related to the vaccine but if you're giving a different product than you did in the trial and you can't make that inference now just a few days ago or Megan maybe it was last week a new study was published in science advances right one of the science journal options uh major uh mainstream well-respected publication on menstrual bleeding following vaccination oh yeah right and they found that the report and their their reports were lower than many other studies that have been done on this but they reported the premenstrual women something around a little bit under 15 of women reported leading within four weeks of vaccination so you know how what percentage look they're looking at they're looking at pre-menopause of women who don't normally mentioned premenopausal women sorry do you know what percentage of premenopausal women who got the the the vaccine how many in the trial reported menstrual bleeding no I don't point seven percent okay I did that calculation myself there were like four women okay um well maybe it was five so you know how do you get from point seven to fifteen percent okay there are two ways one you're giving them a different product that makes them much more likely to experience menstrual bleeding or two you have failed miserably to track Adverse Events in your trial because if you missed 15 of the women of the premenopausal women in your trial you know having menstrual problems after you've given them this investigational product then you know you're doing a terrible job right now we know that they changed the they changed the product to one that for various reasons that we could go you know we can we can speculate on how the endotoxin could you know affect the pituitary gland and whatever you know change the we can we could do that but the facts of the matter is is that the percentage in the population that got the process two jobs they're reporting at a much higher rates and that's not the only thing um lymphadenopathy is another thing where you see much higher rates being reported for the third job for example which was using process two compared to the first two and that wasn't because it was a third jab and now I can go into the evidence about that it's because it was processed too um and there are other things like anaphylaxis right not there was basically there was one treatment subject in the trial who had an anaphylactic reaction and that was reportedly due to a bee sting there was one Placebo subject who had an anaphylactic reaction like two days after they had the they crossed over and had their the actual uh vaccine okay but other than that that was it there was uh well there was one other Placebo subject that that reported some anaphylaxis okay that was it in the study the entire study of 44 000 people meanwhile on the very first day that they started administering the vaccine in England two nurses went down with a severe allergic reaction which I infer or speculate uh was anaphylaxis or some form of anaphylaxis and then the next day they changed the regulations about you know they wanted you to sit and be observed for 15 to 30 minutes and make sure that you weren't getting that anaphylactic reaction they completely missed it in in the trial they didn't see any problem with anaphylaxis in the trial and I submit to you the reason is because they were using a different product a safer product frankly did you say a safer product you think you think process two safer no process one is safer I'm not saying it's I'm not saying right yeah I'm sorry I mean I don't want to rate paint a Rosy picture about process one it has its own you know the entire sort of mRNA Paradigm and the transfection and the use of liquid nanoparticles all of this has comes with its own baggage and problems yeah but then to add to that an unknown amount of endotoxin or LPS has yet to be established amounts of contamination of dsdna you know you add that in and you can link you know a lot of the problems that people observe to the to the endotoxin that we now know is in the gaps we don't know how much and it's also like sort of next to Impossible or extraordinarily expensive to clean it out from the process you know the manufacturing process so yeah so the process one uh is it's a cleaner method right it's a cleaner method and I I would I would I would submit to you that it is a safer a safer product got it but you you've done analysis yourself on differences in menstruation lymphadenopathy the swelling of the lymph nodes and anaphylaxis that is well um what are you doing about getting your work peer-reviewed uh Josh I didn't hear you I'm sorry go ahead oh sorry um yeah I was just summarizing the menstruation the lymphadenopathy in the two cases of anaphylaxis the differences you've highlighted um what are you doing you've said we've got your rapid response articles from bmj what are you going do we want how we're going to get this work of yours peer-reviewed um that's an excellent question um I think there are still a few pieces of the puzzle that we want to try to uh put together before we submit it but um you know after we get off this call I'd be happy to talk with you about your suggestions for where we might submit this this this research yeah yeah I mean you're aware that this is the next stage in the process really yes yeah absolutely well we'll leave that there I think Josh thank you very much all quite fascinating um I've certainly learned a lot and uh we look forward to this being uh peer-reviewed and further opinions and take it from there but the implications for manufacturing of future mRNA vaccines which as you know there's plans to manufacture huge amounts in my country in Canada and Australia yes ongoing Manufacturing in the states I think the implications of this couldn't be uh more serious really and we look forward I mean even now we can see that they're when they're they're coming out with all of these boosters and they're saying well we tested it on mice uh but we don't need to test it on people anymore because we already did that and we found out that it's effective and it's safe and so this study is is going to be is used as a landmark where people can refer back to it and say we don't need to do a big study on people anymore or a study at all on people because we've already done it right yeah it's it's trouble if it was on a slightly different in fact it was on a different product might not be an issue but uh it would be an issue to me yeah thank you John yeah thank you for all your time Josh um fascinating stuff and we'll look forward to um I think we might get a few comments on this so check them out all right yeah thank you take care

Channel: Dr. John Campbell

Views: 214,693

Keywords: physiology, nursing, NCLEX, health, disease, biology, medicine, nurse education, medical education, pathophysiology, campbell, human biology, human body

Id: DO1Ivk6JYyE

Length: 43min 18sec (2598 seconds)

Published: Wed Oct 04 2023