Blog Research integrity

Pravda of Jessus report, CNRS Politburo scared of own people

Following my recent article about attempts to fix data irregularities in the papers by CNRS’ chief biologist and director of l’Institut des sciences biologiques (INSB) Catherine Jessus, this state-owned French research institution, the biggest in Europe, now went full Pravda. Just as the notorious propaganda newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Pravda means Truth in Russian), CNRS press release of February 21st about the Jessus misconduct investigation combines lies, disinformation, and thinly veiled threats and calls for mass denunciation of traitors. The foreign enemy of French science is clearly identified: myself, the slanderous blogger.

All that would be mildly entertaining, were it not for the main victim of that investigative report: research integrity. We learn from that Soviet-style propaganda piece that Jessus took responsibility for almost all of the data manipulations in her papers, in fact even more data integrity problems emerged during the investigation, in figures previously not flagged either on my site or on PubPeer. Jessus was tasked by the commission to analyse her own incriminated figures herself, and to report her findings to her investigators. These professors of the l’Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC, now Sorbonne University) who wisely chose to hide their identities (while decrying same with PubPeer commenters, sic!) had then the cheek to actually endorse the practice of data manipulations, in a public document, most astonishingly that of gel band duplications across different gel images, “for reasons of visual symmetry”. In other instances of cloned gel bands, the investigators spoke of scientifically-irrelevant “assembly errors” of western blots. No, not of separate antibody panels. Of individual gel images. They do not believe in monolithic photographs of an experimental gel, but prefer those as a digital puzzle or a collage, to be assembled from various bits and pieces in Photoshop, where a scientist sometimes inadvertently slips and uses the same gel band or bit of background twice.

Masquerading  research misconduct as good scientific practice is a form of scientific misconduct in itself. It doesn’t matter if these so-called experts really believed into the greater good of data manipulations, or strategically trolled the scientific community under cover of anonymity to save Jessus from herself, or were professionally unqualified to judge on the matters of biological science. Their decision not to see any misconduct despite ascertained evidence, while appropriating the entire blame onto those who blew the whistle, was borderline criminal, considering the circumstances. These dishonest UPMC investigators should be dragged out of their anonymity and publicly shamed and disciplined for the damage they just did to the reputation of French science.

Instead, we have an investigative report and a press release which looks as if written either by retired Stasi officials or Pravda columnists. It is in French, so I used Google to translate the press release, the conclusions of the report, and the detailed analysis.


Paris, February 21, 2018

The Sorbonne University – CNRS commission of inquiry into the questioning of Catherine Jessus’ publications concludes that there is no scientific misconduct

In September 2017, Catherine Jessus, research director at the CNRS, head of a team in the Laboratory of Developmental Biology (CNRS-Sorbonne University), director of the Institute of Biological Sciences (INSB) of the CNRS, was accused of scientific misconduct in a blog [mine, also publicly confirmed by French news agency AEF, here. I also never publicly accused Jessus of research misconduct, that is a lie made up by CNRS and UPMC, -LS]. These elements, relayed on certain social networks and delivered in disguise by anonymous commentators, were aimed at 11 articles published over a period of twenty years, of which she is not the first author, and is the last author for four of them. De facto, her co-authors, including several researchers or research professors belonging to UPMC or CNRS, were also implicated.

UPMC (now Sorbonne University) set up a commission of inquiry, whenever a possibility of misconduct or scientific fraud is suspected. The CNRS has joined this initiative. In addition, some scientific journals have also approached the university for investigation, according to their procedures.

The investigation report concludes that “it did not find, in the figures incriminated on the internet, any basis for a scientific misconduct of Ms. Jessus”. In seven of the eleven publications, the committee states that “suspicions of inappropriate assembly of figures are unfounded”. In each of the other four, errors were identified that did not call into question the conclusions of the research conducted, errors of which “Ms. Jessus is never the originator”. The report states that corrective requests have been made to the relevant scientific publishers, who have all accepted them.

Deeply committed to the respect of ethics both in the conduct of research and its publication, the CNRS and Sorbonne University recall their commitment as scientific institutions to treat the business of scientific misconduct with the utmost rigour, protecting the launchers of sincere warnings, such as researchers and lecturers whose innocence has been demonstrated. In case of misconduct or proven fraud, they take appropriate sanctions, without any complacency.

The CNRS and Sorbonne University finally call for greater collective vigilance regarding the multiplication of false accusations, without any scientific justification, under the guise of pseudonyms, because it complicates the identification of real fraud.

The CNRS and Sorbonne University reaffirm their confidence in Catherine Jessus and are indignant at the slanderous campaign of which she was a victim.

The three parts of the investigation report are available at the following links:

The conclusions of the report
Detailed analysis
Annex 1 

This was the press release, it came right after I published this article. In case you naively thought that “suspicions of inappropriate assembly of figures are unfounded” means that the supposedly duplicated gel bands turned out to be different: no. What UPMC investigators decreed is that those gel bands were indeed digitally cloned across different gels “for reasons of visual symmetry” and were as such “correct” and “legitimate”. They also said that copy-pasting patches of background to cover up undesired parts of  a gel are perfectly OK, because those “affect control areas with no relevant signal from the biological point of view”.

I have seen a number of white-washing investigative reports. The excuses ranged from “these bands are not duplicated“, over “it does look shady, but with original data missing there is nothing we can do“, up to “yes those are rigged figures, but their use was an accident and we don’t know who did it anyway“. With Jessus however, CNRS not only boldly admitted what other investigations were trying to hide, they even declared data manipulation to be good scientific practice.  This black-is-white and white-is-black public indoctrination is exactly what Soviet Union used to enforce. At the end, we all are expected to love Comrade Jessus, and hate her critics.

The slide show below offers the translations of the detailed analysis, a pdf is here. My own comments are in red, labelled “LS”


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Now, if intentionally duplicating gel bands and background patches is not misconduct, what is then defined as misconduct, to be persecuted by the CNRS apparatchiks “without any complacency”? 

If flagging objective data integrity concerns is now defined by that Pravda announcement as “a slanderous campaign” on an innocent “victim”, as “false accusations, without any scientific justification”, what is then scientifically justified whistleblowing, which “sincere warnings” are allowed under the new Party doctrine of CNRS Politburo?

What does the CNRS amateurish attempt at playing Stasi mean with their order of “greater collective vigilance regarding the multiplication of false accusations” directed towards the CNRS working masses?

My guess: it is the act of reporting data manipulations and research misconduct which CNRS has now announced not to tolerate. Data manipulation is now good scientific practice, critiquing data manipulation as a something less then commendable is unscientific slander. This Orwellian practice is exactly how Pravda used to indoctrinate Soviet citizens not to believe their own eyes and common sense.

Vigilante scientists seem to be invited in the best Stasi manner to report complainers, troublemakers, saboteurs and traitors to the authorities. Heard someone critiquing a digitally manipulated figure in a CNRS paper, or protesting how their principal investigator expects them to rig data, or secretly reading Schneider’s slanderous blog? Be a loyal CNRS comrade, report those enemies of the people! Get rewarded, see them squashed without mercy.

Or maybe not. The more one looks at this pathetic bum-wipe of a CNRS press release from Erich Honecker’s latrine, the more it does sound like the CNRS Politburo is panicking. They are obviously scared of CNRS scientists, and try to bully them into silence and submission, similar to the morally bankrupted GDR in its death throes in late 1980ies. There is proportionally much less money in French science then there used to be, yet academic inbreeding and nepotism are still standard practice in CNRS. We do not know yet what the new president of CNRS, Antoine Petit, will bring. Maybe he will be a kind of a CNRS Gorbatchev, who will break down the corrupt oppressive system, with some badly needed Perestroika and Glasnost. The current press release by CNRS Politburo however suggests they count on Petit to continue toeing the Party line.

Petit never replied to my emails. Maybe he is afraid of the Politburo, maybe he genuinely despises me as a slanderous blogger who knows nothing of how biological science is done properly, or maybe the President thinks I am simply a nobody, not a significant enough entity to waste his secretary’s time on. Well, Petit took office in advance only because my earlier reporting toppled his predecessor, Anne Peyroche.

Below is the summary of the investigative report. It is unsigned. Indeed, anyone signing that cheap propaganda piece should be quite afraid of international ridicule, or face misconduct investigation themselves. Highlights and illustrations mine.


Committee report for Karaiskou et al 1999: “The originals have not all been found. The authors doubt that there is duplication of Fig. 3C and 3B. Moreover, some instances of duplications between 3B and 5D correspond to the same experiments (blue rectangle), which explains their being used twice because figures 3 and 5 are from the same experiment. The other duplications all correspond to experimental conditions producing similar protein profiles, which would explain the errors in the assembly of these figures”.
From the report for Karaiskou et al J Cell Science 1999: “it has been proposed to replace the incriminated figures in the publication by new figures illustrating the same results. These replacements, relating to Figures 3 and 5, have been accepted by the journal.
The commission concludes that these figures include on the one hand legitimate duplications because they correspond to results of the same experiment reproduced in Figures 3 and 5, and secondly, they are unintentional errors in editing these figures that do not affect the scientific message of the article. The Committee believes that the new proposed figures, which result from experiments identical to those used to support the figures of the article, deliver exactly the same message as the original figures”.

Report addressing the internet suspicions of publications of which Ms. Jessus is co-author.

Presented to the Presidencies of the CNRS and Sorbonne University, on February 16, 2018,
by the commission of inquiry designated by these institutions.

Ms. Jessus is Director of Research at the CNRS. She leads a team in UMR CNRS / SU 7622, ​​within the IBPS campus Jussieu. Beyond her activity, for more than four years, Ms. Jessus has also been Director of the Institute Biological Sciences (INSB) of CNRS, a strategic and managerial responsibility of CNRS intervention in the field of life sciences at the national level.
We were approached by the UPMC / Sorbonne University and the CNRS on a mission to provide scientific expertise of Ms. Jessus’s publications. The context of this mission is the following. Charges of scientific misconduct were laid against her on a blog [here, but actually there are no charges of misconduct there. UPMC lies, -LS], accusations relayed on an online discussion forum, by the same blogger [myself, on PubPeer, -LS] and by a number of commenters using various pseudonyms that do not allow their identification. These charges relate to possible data manipulation in 21 figures in eleven articles of which Ms Jessus is co-author. For the eleven articles concerned, Ms Jessus is the last author on four occasions (4, 5, 6, 11) and is never first author. Mr. Haccard has co-authored seven times (2 of which as the last author, -8, 9-); Mr. Ozon is co-author six times (of which 3 as last author, -1, 2, 3-), Ms. Dupré is co-author four times (3 times first author, -8, 9, 11-, 1 time last author, -10-) and Ms. Karaiskou is co-author twice (as first author, -3, 6-).

The handling of this figure proves utter incompetence of the investigators. First, they didn’t notice that the red boxes indicate that the lanes are shifted. Otherwise, as report states: “There is no error, re-use is desired. The same controls were used because the two figures use one and the same treatment. Part of the experiment, with the controls, is illustrated in figure 4, and another part of the experiment, with the same controls since it is the same treatment, is illustrated in Figure 8”. Thing is, Fig 4 is labelled “Buffer”, which according to legend is PBS (phosphate-buffered saline). Those confusing PBS with DMSO treatment cannot call themselves experts in biological sciences and had no business investigating this case. Image: Elisabeth Bik.


The work of the inquiry commission took place from October 18, 2017 to February 15 2018 [yet Jessus publicly announced the exact same outcome of UPMC investigation on November 28th 2017, -LS). The Committee, after having taken cognizance of all the criticised articles, auditioned Ms. Jessus three times, then heard from two of her co-authors, first or last signatories of articles for which additional information on the mode of production of certain figures was necessary. The commission asked Madame Jessus to provide the original documents used to assemble the incriminated figures and, when necessary, to provide the results of experiments similar to the published ones in order to verify their robustness. The Committee also asked Ms Jessus for a detailed report analysing each of the incriminated figures, by bringing them scientific comments necessary for a thorough understanding of the presented results. These elements were compared with the Commission’s critical analysis of these same figures.
For 7 criticised articles (1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11) suspicions of inappropriate assembly of
figures are unfounded (see “detailed analysis”). We can list the unfounded suspicions in the following categories:

– legitimate duplications: these are, in most cases, control samples for immuno-replicas (western blots) of the same experiment, different experimental parts of which are illustrated in different figures. These same experimental conditions being provided with same controls, it is normal for these controls to be used again in the figures illustrating different parts of this same experiment (2, 4, 5, 7).

This gel band duplication in Rime et al 1998 is “correct”, according to CNRS/UPMC report, because “the panels of Figure 4 are from the same experiment”. Also: “Developmental Biology contacted the authors asking them to provide an answer to the question asked on the Internet. The authors provided this answer. The journal concluded that it was satisfactory and that it would not make any corrections”.  The journal’s Editor-in-Chief with such interesting stance on data manipulation is Marianne Bronner, professor at Caltech.

re-hybridizations of the same membrane: the same membrane has been probed
successively by two different antibodies directed against the same protein: the first
immuno-replica detects the presence of phosphorylated groups on this protein while that the second immuno-replica detects the protein itself. It is therefore normal to find identical protein bands in their form in the two immuno-replicas, with different intensities on the first immuno-replica depending on whether the protein is over- or under-phosphorylated (9).

similarities in the background: some backgrounds show “pixels” identical in two different places of the same figure. Consultation of the originals shows the total absence of figure manipulation. This suggests that these “pixels” have been printed during the digitization of the image, during the digitization of autoradiograms or figure, once assembled and edited for publication (5, 7, 9).

The commission declares for Dupre et al 2014: “The image has not been manipulated” and refers to the Supplementary Figure 9 in Nature Communications. Which is of a very low resolution and incidentally cut off just above the area where background duplications are marked.

unreported splicing of different images in the same panel: several charges relate to the presence of non-contiguous parts of a gel, re-assembled in the same panel without their non-contiguity being indicated by a vertical line or space. In all cases, consulting the originals or reading carefully the article has revealed that the assemblies were totally justified, whether they came from different parts of the same gel, or different gels resulting from the same experiment and hybridized by the same antibody (1-6, 8, 11) [here, the report actually refers to cases of duplicated gel bands, -LS]. The change of the codex of representation of such figures (insertion of a vertical line or a space) is consecutive to the abandonment of montages following the introduction of digitized image processing, in particular by Photoshop type software. These software makes it possible to erase the borders of these re-assemblies, removing the possibility for the reader to view them in simple reading. It is from 2013 on that some journals began to advocate the use of lines to indicate these connections (for example see Annex 2), a recommendation which is not yet shared by all the scientific journals. It helps to understand that the indication to the reader of the boundaries of re-assembly in scientific article figures, which is undoubtedly a welcome indication since the eruption of image processing software, was implemented gradually over the ten
last years. Seven of the criticised articles were published before this change in
representation codex appeared in the scientific literature. The last is published in
a journal that had not yet produced this codex in the “Instructions to Authors” of
2017 [there, authors actually first replaced entire figures in their correction, and then indicated splicing, – LS].

In this paper, Frank-Vaillant et al 2000, the commission determined even more gel band  duplications: “Figs. 6A and FIG. 10B have in common two Eg2 lanes (same experimental conditions, same legends). Figs. 7A and FIG. 8B share three lanes Eg2 and Cyclin B2 (same experimental conditions, same legends). Figs. 8A and FIG. 8B share three Cyclin B2 lanes (same experimental   conditions, same legends)”. The committee’s verdict: “It is also justified that the controls of the same experiment are re-used in several figures when these are sourced from this same experiment” and “Visible vertical lines in the assemblies could have been added, but it was not recommended in 2000”.  The data-manipulation-endorsing Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Cell Science is Michael Way, group leader at The Crick: “The journal where these results were published, judged, as the commission, that no correction was required”

Next are three articles (3, 6, 10) with obvious errors in figure assembly which led an author to place the same set of controls in two different panels. When the originals were found, we found that the controls from each panel existed. For those which have not been found, we have access to identical experiments that confirm that the assembly error did not alter the scientific meaning of the experiment [oh, but they did alter it, not that it mattered to the “experts”. See here. -LS]. We purposely use the term “assembly error” because intentionality is difficult to assume since there is no change in the scientific message of the figure. These are control lanes in experiments showing proven phenomena whose meaning is not modified by these duplications.

From the committee report on Karaiskou et al 2004: “The original of Figure 7A has not been found. The originals of several identical experiments performed at that time were found. The authors proposed to replace in the publication the panel 7A by a new panel showing the same results”. And anyway, the commission  “is not convinced of the duplications affecting the figures which originals were not found”.
From committee report: “The original of Figure 7A has not been found. The originals of several identical experiments performed at that time were found. The authors proposed to replace in the publication the panel 7A by a new panel showing the same results”.
““The original of Figure 2A has not been found. This panel is not essential  because the same result is already shown in three other figures of the same article”.  Regarding Figure 5C: “an error in the assembly of the different parts led to the observed duplication. A correction using the same originals with proper assembly was requested”. Editor-in-Chief of Development is Olivier Pourquié, professor at Harvard Medical School: “The committee considers, like the journal that accepted the corrections, that the new figures proposed, resulting from experiments identical to those which served to support the figures of the article, deliver exactly the same messages as the original figures”.

However, these errors warranted that the authors propose a corrigendum to the journals concerned, with appropriate controls to restore the good reading of the experiments. This approach had been initiated by the authors even before the beginning of the work of the commission. Since then, all these corrigenda have been accepted.
The last case (8) corresponds to the attenuation of a reaction due to the keratin present in the environment, a very classic contamination for immuno-replicates. This mitigation, which was not done by Ms. Jessus but by the researcher who did the experiment, does not modify the reading of it or its scientific sense. It naturally required a corrigendum correcting the presentation faithful to the original to remove any ambiguity. This corrigendum was accepted. This is the only example of this type that we found among the 21 incriminated figures.

The only inappropriately manipulated image the commission found among many appropriately manipulated. It is in a J Cell Science paper Dupre et al 2013 by Jessus’s PhD student Aude Dupre. From the report: “A manipulation of the image scanned by a software tool  Photoshop has been practised to attenuate an artefact due to the presence of keratin in tracks controls. The erasure zone does not affect the conclusion of the figure”.

In conclusion, the Committee states that it did not find any ground for scientific misconduct of Ms. Jessus in the figures incriminated on the internet. The commission noted three publications that included figure assembly errors, and a publication that has an attenuation of contaminants in a figure. These articles deserved publication of the originals to remove any ambiguity, which is in progress. The Commission stresses that Ms Jessus is never at the origin of these assembly errors of this attenuation, the co-authors who assembled these figures have been identified without any ambiguity”.


This is what the committee had to say about Frank-Vailllant et al, Developmental Biology 2001: “These controls were re-used and repeated in all the figures (2 to 5) for reasons of visual symmetry and coherence of the presentation. A vertical line between lane 2 and lane 3 of each panel, highlighting this assembly, could have been added”. And what happened to cloned Cyclin B2 band in Fig3? “The authors have no explanation for what appears to be possible duplication. If that is the case, it must be an inadvertent error when mounting the figure”. Moreover, also the Elsevier journal approved: “It is justified that controls of the same experiment should be used in several figures when they are sourced from the same experimental conditions. The Commission considers, like the journal Developmental Biology, that no correction is necessary”.




If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!


31 comments on “Pravda of Jessus report, CNRS Politburo scared of own people

  1. To borrow a French word made famous by Shakespeare, Jessus may very well be “hoist by her own pétard”. We need not dwell on the root meaning of pétard.


  2. I can save you consulting Google translate to summarize this report as follows: “This is how we do it, y’all.”
    By the standards of French Science, the practices of Jessus et al. are perfectly acceptable. Come up with an idea, do a one-off demonstration experiment and then assemble the “results” to present a visually appealing presentation.
    How this plays in a wider court of opinion is a different matter. A 40% correction rate does not look too good by any standard.


  3. Unfortunately France has a challenge regarding corruption:

    which may be partly an explanation for the surprising conclusion based on the evidence provided.

    This is sad indeed. Research misconduct or research misbehaviour is very devastating for research progress, it is costly for the society and put patients at risk.

    Organizations like CNRS should put these problems as priority no 1 instead of protecting the persons
    involved in this bad practice and turn one’s back on these problems.

    Unfortunatly I see this as a general problem, Patient organization and Research councils are afraid of
    bad publicity and are willing to sweep the problems under the carpet. American Association for Cancer Research and their journals (e.g. Cancer Research) is one of many examples for how bad it can be.
    If they really care about the cancer patients why don’t they take initiative to correct and retract invalid research data published in their own journals? The journal Cancer Research has over 400 posts on Pubpeer. Time to start the cleaning process!


  4. It would be interesting to bring criminal charges against the anonymous authors of this report. Either they fake to be scientists, or they are lying when they say that they believe the manipulations were unintentional. Such lie would serve to rob the French citizens of money to invest in non-trustworthy scientists.


  5. Very nice drawing. You are improving !


  6. Jean-Marc Isorel

    Great paper Leonid! The publication of this report obviously aggravates the situation of Jessus in the way that it tacitely acknowledges the image manipulations and overall misconduct. I am really surprized that the head of the CNRS did not think of it before publishing this funny report…


  7. Pingback: Boletim de Notícias: Belo Monte, assunto abafado à esquerda e à direita | Direto da Ciência

  8. The funny thing is that, other than Leonid claims and claimed (although I respect Leonid’s work a lot, we have different opinions on this), so far Jessus had not been severely implicated.
    However, as the leader of the organization which produced this report, which tries to brush aside even the most blatant manipulations as innocent, she now is deeply involved and responsible.
    The authors of the report did not do her a favor.


  9. The coverup is often worse than the crime. I guess this is her “Nixon moment.”


  10. Me again

    Who knows what kind of background these anonymous report-writers have. Maybe I can explain to them with a simple example that the Fig. 5B duplication in Karaiskou et al J Cell Science 1999 can’t be an “unintentional error”. If you see that the Santa Claus in the mall is your school teacher, except that he wears red clothes and a beard and calls himself Santa, you can assume that he wears those items with the purpose of misleading you. That he did not start wearing those items as an “unintentional error”. You can then also assume that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
    If for French detectives this is still too complicated (to all who need that information, Santa really doesn’t exist), I may be helpful with other examples.


  11. Smut Clyde

    I was entertained to discover the @pubfear twitter account, dedicated to attacking PubPeer and its founders for their disloyalty to CNRS and their anti-Jessus, anti-Peyrouche agenda.

    There is also the account @stephapiguet (ostensibly Stéphanie Piguet), who joined Twitter in January to promote these attacks on PubPeer, but also to remind everyone that Leonid Schneider is a mean person who smells of elderberries and probably uses sockpuppet twitter accounts.

    The paranoia is strong.


    • Jean-Marc Isorel

      Looks like the battle is raging at the CNRS. Interesting.


      • Smut Clyde

        If @stephapiguet and @pubfear are to be believed, you are one of LS’s sockpuppets.

        Leonid has to accept some of the blame for stoking the fires of suspicion. In his initial post on Catherine Jessus-coauthored papers he credited other, unnamed researchers for sending him the critical analyses. People at CNRS seem to have leaped to the conclusion that these sources must have been internal — that is, they have whistle-blowers and moles in their midst, trying to topple the leadership for entirely political purposes.

        So now it is all paranoia and mole-hunting and denunciations.


      • Smut Clyde

        If @pubfear and @stephapiguet are to be believed, you do not exist, and are only one of LS’s sockpuppets. I am sorry to have to break the sad news.


      • Like

  12. I think we should kiss the people who wrote the report on both cheeks!


  13. Jean-Marc Isorel

    That’s the REAL Leonid, but they do not kiss on the cheeks! By the way, I am a real person…


  14. Pingback: Jessus investigator identity leaked, CNRS President to expose whistleblowers – For Better Science

  15. Pingback: Salk Gandalf Tony Hunter get AACR prize for magic western blots – For Better Science

  16. Pingback: French Biologists: CNRS-Sorbonne investigators “totally incompetent”, data manipulations in Jessus papers “intentionally fraudulent forgeries” – For Better Science

  17. Pingback: Cardiff: no misconduct by TCM professor Wen Jiang, report secret – For Better Science

  18. Pingback: Jessus critics defiant, reactionary cock-up and Chicken of Dishonour Legion – For Better Science

  19. Pingback: Edinburgh breaks silence to announce Stancheva retractions – For Better Science

  20. Pingback: Catherine Jessus case: journals hide behind Sorbonne & COPE to avoid retractions – For Better Science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: