document_title: List of Olympic medalists in speed skating

question_text: speed skater karen who won 8 olympic medals

text: Speed skating is a sport that has been contested at the Winter Olympic Games since the inaugural Games in 1924.[1] Events held at the first Winter Olympics included the men's 500-metre, 1500-metre, 5000-metre, and 10,000-metre races. Points from the four races were combined and counted towards the all-round event, which was dropped following the 1924 Olympics. Speed skating events for women were first held at the 1932 Winter Olympics, as a demonstration sport.[2][3] The first official women's events were held in 1960 in the 500-metre, 1000-metre, 1500-metre, and 3000-metre distances. The men's 1000-metre event was added in 1976 and the women's 5000-metre event was added in 1988. All 10 events have been held at every Olympic Games since, and a team pursuit event for both genders was added in 2006, for a total of 12 medal events.[4]

text: German Claudia Pechstein has won nine medals—five gold, two silver, and two bronze—more than any other speed skater at the Olympics. She is also one of four Winter Olympians to win medals at five straight Olympics.[5] Lidiya Skoblikova, who represented the Soviet Union, is one of two female Winter Olympians to win six gold medals (cross-country skier Lyubov Yegorova is the other).[6] At the 1924 Winter Olympics, Finn Clas Thunberg became the first athlete to win two or more gold medals; in 1928, he became the first speed skater to successfully defend an Olympic title. At the 1964 Games, Skoblikova won four gold medals and became the first athlete to win a gold in every available event. The feat was repeated in 1980 by American Eric Heiden, who won five golds, the most that any Winter Olympian has won at one edition of the Games.[3] In 2006, Canadian Cindy Klassen became the only other speed skater, and one of seven Winter Olympians, to win five medals—one gold, two silver, two bronze—at a single edition of the Games.[6] Pechstein and American Bonnie Blair are the only speed skaters to win gold in the same event three times in a row. Andrea Schöne, who won a silver medal in 1976, is the youngest female athlete in an individual event to win a medal.[3] German Christa Luding-Rothenburger and Canadian Clara Hughes are the only medal-winning speed skaters who have also won a medal at the Summer Olympic Games, having won medals in cycling.[3]

text: Dutch speed skaters have been the most successful in terms of combined medals (105), as well as gold medals (35). After the 2014 Winter Olympics, 176 gold medals, 178 silver medals and 172 bronze medals have been awarded since 1924 and have been won by speed skaters from 23 National Olympic Committees.

text:
Table of contents

Men

500 m • 1000 m • 1500 m • 5000 m • 10,000 m • Mass start • Team pursuit

Women

500 m • 1000 m • 1500 m • 3000 m • 5000 m • Mass start • Team pursuit

Discontinued

All-round

Statistics        See also        References

text: Men[edit]

text: 500 metres[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

1924 Chamonix
details
Charles Jewtraw
 United States
Oskar Olsen
 Norway
Roald Larsen
 Norway

Clas Thunberg
 Finland

1928 St. Moritz
details
Bernt Evensen
 Norway
None awarded
John Farrell
 United States

Clas Thunberg
 Finland
Jaakko Friman
 Finland

Roald Larsen
 Norway

1932 Lake Placid
details
Jack Shea
 United States
Bernt Evensen
 Norway
Alexander Hurd
 Canada

1936 Garmisch-Partenkirchen
details
Ivar Ballangrud
 Norway
Georg Krog
 Norway
Leo Freisinger
 United States

1948 St. Moritz
details
Finn Helgesen
 Norway
Ken Bartholomew
 United States
None awarded

Thomas Byberg
 Norway

Robert Fitzgerald
 United States

1952 Oslo
details
Ken Henry
 United States
Don McDermott
 United States
Gordon Audley
 Canada

Arne Johansen
 Norway

1956 Cortina d'Ampezzo
details
Yevgeny Grishin
 Soviet Union
Rafayel Grach
 Soviet Union
Alv Gjestvang
 Norway

1960 Squaw Valley
details
Yevgeny Grishin
 Soviet Union
Bill Disney
 United States
Rafayel Grach
 Soviet Union

1964 Innsbruck
details
Terry McDermott
 United States
Alv Gjestvang
 Norway
None awarded

Yevgeny Grishin
 Soviet Union

Vladimir Orlov
 Soviet Union

1968 Grenoble
details
Erhard Keller
 West Germany
Terry McDermott
 United States
None awarded

Magne Thomassen
 Norway

1972 Sapporo
details
Erhard Keller
 West Germany
Hasse Börjes
 Sweden
Valery Muratov
 Soviet Union

1976 Innsbruck
details
Yevgeny Kulikov
 Soviet Union
Valery Muratov
 Soviet Union
Dan Immerfall
 United States

1980 Lake Placid
details
Eric Heiden
 United States
Yevgeny Kulikov
 Soviet Union
Lieuwe de Boer
 Netherlands

1984 Sarajevo
details
Sergey Fokichev
 Soviet Union
Yoshihiro Kitazawa
 Japan
Gaétan Boucher
 Canada

1988 Calgary
details
Uwe-Jens Mey
 East Germany
Jan Ykema
 Netherlands
Akira Kuroiwa
 Japan

1992 Albertville
details
Uwe-Jens Mey
 Germany
Toshiyuki Kuroiwa
 Japan
Junichi Inoue
 Japan

1994 Lillehammer
details
Aleksandr Golubev
 Russia
Sergey Klevchenya
 Russia
Manabu Horii
 Japan

1998 Nagano
details
Hiroyasu Shimizu
 Japan
Jeremy Wotherspoon
 Canada
Kevin Overland
 Canada

2002 Salt Lake City
details
Casey FitzRandolph
 United States
Hiroyasu Shimizu
 Japan
Kip Carpenter
 United States

2006 Turin
details
Joey Cheek
 United States
Dmitry Dorofeyev
 Russia
Lee Kang-seok
 South Korea

2010 Vancouver
details
Mo Tae-bum
 South Korea
Keiichiro Nagashima
 Japan
Joji Kato
 Japan

2014 Sochi
details
Michel Mulder
 Netherlands
Jan Smeekens
 Netherlands
Ronald Mulder
 Netherlands

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: 1000 metres[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

1976 Innsbruck
details
Peter Mueller
 United States
Jørn Didriksen
 Norway
Valery Muratov
 Soviet Union

1980 Lake Placid
details
Eric Heiden
 United States
Gaétan Boucher
 Canada
Vladimir Lobanov
 Soviet Union

Frode Rønning
 Norway

1984 Sarajevo
details
Gaétan Boucher
 Canada
Sergey Khlebnikov
 Soviet Union
Kai Arne Engelstad
 Norway

1988 Calgary
details
Nikolay Gulyayev
 Soviet Union
Uwe-Jens Mey
 East Germany
Igor Zhelezovski
 Soviet Union

1992 Albertville
details
Olaf Zinke
 Germany
Kim Yoon-man
 South Korea
Yukinori Miyabe
 Japan

1994 Lillehammer
details
Dan Jansen
 United States
Igor Zhelezovski
 Belarus
Sergey Klevchenya
 Russia

1998 Nagano
details
Ids Postma
 Netherlands
Jan Bos
 Netherlands
Hiroyasu Shimizu
 Japan

2002 Salt Lake City
details
Gerard van Velde
 Netherlands
Jan Bos
 Netherlands
Joey Cheek
 United States

2006 Turin
details
Shani Davis
 United States
Joey Cheek
 United States
Erben Wennemars
 Netherlands

2010 Vancouver
details
Shani Davis
 United States
Mo Tae-bum
 South Korea
Chad Hedrick
 United States

2014 Sochi
details
Stefan Groothuis
 Netherlands
Denny Morrison
 Canada
Michel Mulder
 Netherlands

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: 1500 metres[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

1924 Chamonix
details
Clas Thunberg
 Finland
Roald Larsen
 Norway
Sigurd Moen
 Norway

1928 St. Moritz
details
Clas Thunberg
 Finland
Bernt Evensen
 Norway
Ivar Ballangrud
 Norway

1932 Lake Placid
details
Jack Shea
 United States
Alexander Hurd
 Canada
Willy Logan
 Canada

1936 Garmisch-Partenkirchen
details
Charles Mathiesen
 Norway
Ivar Ballangrud
 Norway
Birger Wasenius
 Finland

1948 St. Moritz
details
Sverre Farstad
 Norway
Åke Seyffarth
 Sweden
Odd Lundberg
 Norway

1952 Oslo
details
Hjalmar Andersen
 Norway
Wim van der Voort
 Netherlands
Roald Aas
 Norway

1956 Cortina d'Ampezzo
details
Yevgeny Grishin
 Soviet Union
None awarded
Toivo Salonen
 Finland

Yuri Mikhaylov
 Soviet Union

1960 Squaw Valley
details
Roald Aas
 Norway
None awarded
Boris Stenin
 Soviet Union

Yevgeny Grishin
 Soviet Union

1964 Innsbruck
details
Ants Antson
 Soviet Union
Kees Verkerk
 Netherlands
Villy Haugen
 Norway

1968 Grenoble
details
Kees Verkerk
 Netherlands
Ivar Eriksen
 Norway
None awarded

Ard Schenk
 Netherlands

1972 Sapporo
details
Ard Schenk
 Netherlands
Roar Grønvold
 Norway
Göran Claeson
 Sweden

1976 Innsbruck
details
Jan Egil Storholt
 Norway
Yuri Kondakov
 Soviet Union
Hans van Helden
 Netherlands

1980 Lake Placid
details
Eric Heiden
 United States
Kay Arne Stenshjemmet
 Norway
Terje Andersen
 Norway

1984 Sarajevo
details
Gaétan Boucher
 Canada
Sergey Khlebnikov
 Soviet Union
Oleg Bozhev
 Soviet Union

1988 Calgary
details
André Hoffmann
 East Germany
Eric Flaim
 United States
Michael Hadschieff
 Austria

1992 Albertville
details
Johann Olav Koss
 Norway
Ådne Søndrål
 Norway
Leo Visser
 Netherlands

1994 Lillehammer
details
Johann Olav Koss
 Norway
Rintje Ritsma
 Netherlands
Falko Zandstra
 Netherlands

1998 Nagano
details
Ådne Søndrål
 Norway
Ids Postma
 Netherlands
Rintje Ritsma
 Netherlands

2002 Salt Lake City
details
Derek Parra
 United States
Jochem Uytdehaage
 Netherlands
Ådne Søndrål
 Norway

2006 Turin
details
Enrico Fabris
 Italy
Shani Davis
 United States
Chad Hedrick
 United States

2010 Vancouver
details
Mark Tuitert
 Netherlands
Shani Davis
 United States
Håvard Bøkko
 Norway

2014 Sochi
details
Zbigniew Bródka
 Poland
Koen Verweij
 Netherlands
Denny Morrison
 Canada

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: 5000 metres[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

1924 Chamonix
details
Clas Thunberg
 Finland
Julius Skutnabb
 Finland
Roald Larsen
 Norway

1928 St. Moritz
details
Ivar Ballangrud
 Norway
Julius Skutnabb
 Finland
Bernt Evensen
 Norway

1932 Lake Placid
details
Irving Jaffee
 United States
Eddie Murphy
 United States
Willy Logan
 Canada

1936 Garmisch-Partenkirchen
details
Ivar Ballangrud
 Norway
Birger Wasenius
 Finland
Antero Ojala
 Finland

1948 St. Moritz
details
Reidar Liaklev
 Norway
Odd Lundberg
 Norway
Göthe Hedlund
 Sweden

1952 Oslo
details
Hjalmar Andersen
 Norway
Kees Broekman
 Netherlands
Sverre Haugli
 Norway

1956 Cortina d'Ampezzo
details
Boris Shilkov
 Soviet Union
Sigge Ericsson
 Sweden
Oleg Goncharenko
 Soviet Union

1960 Squaw Valley
details
Viktor Kosichkin
 Soviet Union
Knut Johannesen
 Norway
Jan Pesman
 Netherlands

1964 Innsbruck
details
Knut Johannesen
 Norway
Per Ivar Moe
 Norway
Fred Anton Maier
 Norway

1968 Grenoble
details
Fred Anton Maier
 Norway
Kees Verkerk
 Netherlands
Peter Nottet
 Netherlands

1972 Sapporo
details
Ard Schenk
 Netherlands
Roar Grønvold
 Norway
Sten Stensen
 Norway

1976 Innsbruck
details
Sten Stensen
 Norway
Piet Kleine
 Netherlands
Hans van Helden
 Netherlands

1980 Lake Placid
details
Eric Heiden
 United States
Kay Arne Stenshjemmet
 Norway
Tom Erik Oxholm
 Norway

1984 Sarajevo
details
Tomas Gustafson
 Sweden
Igor Malkov
 Soviet Union
René Schöfisch
 East Germany

1988 Calgary
details
Tomas Gustafson
 Sweden
Leo Visser
 Netherlands
Gerard Kemkers
 Netherlands

1992 Albertville
details
Geir Karlstad
 Norway
Falko Zandstra
 Netherlands
Leo Visser
 Netherlands

1994 Lillehammer
details
Johann Olav Koss
 Norway
Kjell Storelid
 Norway
Rintje Ritsma
 Netherlands

1998 Nagano
details
Gianni Romme
 Netherlands
Rintje Ritsma
 Netherlands
Bart Veldkamp
 Belgium

2002 Salt Lake City
details
Jochem Uytdehaage
 Netherlands
Derek Parra
 United States
Jens Boden
 Germany

2006 Turin
details
Chad Hedrick
 United States
Sven Kramer
 Netherlands
Enrico Fabris
 Italy

2010 Vancouver
details
Sven Kramer
 Netherlands
Lee Seung-hoon
 South Korea
Ivan Skobrev
 Russia

2014 Sochi
details
Sven Kramer
 Netherlands
Jan Blokhuijsen
 Netherlands
Jorrit Bergsma
 Netherlands

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: 10,000 metres[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

1924 Chamonix
details
Julius Skutnabb
 Finland
Clas Thunberg
 Finland
Roald Larsen
 Norway

1928 St. Moritz
details
Cancelled halfway through the running of the event due to poor ice conditions.[7]

1932 Lake Placid
details
Irving Jaffee
 United States
Ivar Ballangrud
 Norway
Franck Stack
 Canada

1936 Garmisch-Partenkirchen
details
Ivar Ballangrud
 Norway
Birger Wasenius
 Finland
Max Stiepl
 Austria

1948 St. Moritz
details
Åke Seyffarth
 Sweden
Lassi Parkkinen
 Finland
Pentti Lammio
 Finland

1952 Oslo
details
Hjalmar Andersen
 Norway
Kees Broekman
 Netherlands
Carl-Erik Asplund
 Sweden

1956 Cortina d'Ampezzo
details
Sigge Ericsson
 Sweden
Knut Johannesen
 Norway
Oleg Goncharenko
 Soviet Union

1960 Squaw Valley
details
Knut Johannesen
 Norway
Viktor Kosichkin
 Soviet Union
Kjell Bäckman
 Sweden

1964 Innsbruck
details
Jonny Nilsson
 Sweden
Fred Anton Maier
 Norway
Knut Johannesen
 Norway

1968 Grenoble
details
Johnny Höglin
 Sweden
Fred Anton Maier
 Norway
Örjan Sandler
 Sweden

1972 Sapporo
details
Ard Schenk
 Netherlands
Kees Verkerk
 Netherlands
Sten Stensen
 Norway

1976 Innsbruck
details
Piet Kleine
 Netherlands
Sten Stensen
 Norway
Hans van Helden
 Netherlands

1980 Lake Placid
details
Eric Heiden
 United States
Piet Kleine
 Netherlands
Tom Erik Oxholm
 Norway

1984 Sarajevo
details
Igor Malkov
 Soviet Union
Tomas Gustafson
 Sweden
René Schöfisch
 East Germany

1988 Calgary
details
Tomas Gustafson
 Sweden
Michael Hadschieff
 Austria
Leo Visser
 Netherlands

1992 Albertville
details
Bart Veldkamp
 Netherlands
Johann Olav Koss
 Norway
Geir Karlstad
 Norway

1994 Lillehammer
details
Johann Olav Koss
 Norway
Kjell Storelid
 Norway
Bart Veldkamp
 Netherlands

1998 Nagano
details
Gianni Romme
 Netherlands
Bob de Jong
 Netherlands
Rintje Ritsma
 Netherlands

2002 Salt Lake City
details
Jochem Uytdehaage
 Netherlands
Gianni Romme
 Netherlands
Lasse Sætre
 Norway

2006 Turin
details
Bob de Jong
 Netherlands
Chad Hedrick
 United States
Carl Verheijen
 Netherlands

2010 Vancouver
details
Lee Seung-hoon
 South Korea
Ivan Skobrev
 Russia
Bob de Jong
 Netherlands

2014 Sochi
details
Jorrit Bergsma
 Netherlands
Sven Kramer
 Netherlands
Bob de Jong
 Netherlands

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: Mass start[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: Team pursuit[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

2006 Turin
details
 Italy (ITA)
Matteo Anesi
Stefano Donagrandi
Enrico Fabris
Ippolito Sanfratello
 Canada (CAN)
Arne Dankers
Steven Elm
Denny Morrison
Jason Parker
Justin Warsylewicz
 Netherlands (NED)
Sven Kramer
Rintje Ritsma
Mark Tuitert
Carl Verheijen
Erben Wennemars

2010 Vancouver
details
 Canada (CAN)
Mathieu Giroux
Lucas Makowsky
Denny Morrison
 United States (USA)
Brian Hansen
Chad Hedrick
Jonathan Kuck
Trevor Marsicano
 Netherlands (NED)
Jan Blokhuijsen
Sven Kramer
Simon Kuipers
Mark Tuitert

2014 Sochi
details
 Netherlands (NED)
Jan Blokhuijsen
Sven Kramer
Koen Verweij
 South Korea (KOR)
Joo Hyong-jun
Kim Cheol-min
Lee Seung-hoon
 Poland (POL)
Zbigniew Bródka
Konrad Niedźwiedzki
Jan Szymański

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: Women[edit]

text: 500 metres[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

1960 Squaw Valley
details
Helga Haase
 United Team of Germany
Natalya Donchenko
 Soviet Union
Jeanne Ashworth
 United States

1964 Innsbruck
details
Lidiya Skoblikova
 Soviet Union
Irina Yegorova
 Soviet Union
Tatyana Sidorova
 Soviet Union

1968 Grenoble
details
Lyudmila Titova
 Soviet Union
Jenny Fish
 United States
None awarded

Dianne Holum
 United States

Mary Meyers
 United States

1972 Sapporo
details
Anne Henning
 United States
Vera Krasnova
 Soviet Union
Lyudmila Titova
 Soviet Union

1976 Innsbruck
details
Sheila Young
 United States
Cathy Priestner
 Canada
Tatyana Averina
 Soviet Union

1980 Lake Placid
details
Karin Enke
 East Germany
Leah Poulos-Mueller
 United States
Natalya Petrusyova
 Soviet Union

1984 Sarajevo
details
Christa Rothenburger
 East Germany
Karin Enke
 East Germany
Natalya Shive
 Soviet Union

1988 Calgary
details
Bonnie Blair
 United States
Christa Rothenburger
 East Germany
Karin Enke
 East Germany

1992 Albertville
details
Bonnie Blair
 United States
Ye Qiaobo
 China
Christa Luding-Rothenburger
 Germany

1994 Lillehammer
details
Bonnie Blair
 United States
Susan Auch
 Canada
Franziska Schenk
 Germany

1998 Nagano
details
Catriona Le May Doan
 Canada
Susan Auch
 Canada
Tomomi Okazaki
 Japan

2002 Salt Lake City
details
Catriona Le May Doan
 Canada
Monique Garbrecht-Enfeldt
 Germany
Sabine Völker
 Germany

2006 Turin
details
Svetlana Zhurova
 Russia
Wang Manli
 China
Ren Hui
 China

2010 Vancouver
details
Lee Sang-hwa
 South Korea
Jenny Wolf
 Germany
Wang Beixing
 China

2014 Sochi
details
Lee Sang-hwa
 South Korea
vacant
Margot Boer
 Netherlands

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: 1000 metres[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

1960 Squaw Valley
details
Klara Guseva
 Soviet Union
Helga Haase
 United Team of Germany
Tamara Rylova
 Soviet Union

1964 Innsbruck
details
Lidiya Skoblikova
 Soviet Union
Irina Yegorova
 Soviet Union
Kaija Mustonen
 Finland

1968 Grenoble
details
Carry Geijssen
 Netherlands
Lyudmila Titova
 Soviet Union
Dianne Holum
 United States

1972 Sapporo
details
Monika Pflug
 West Germany
Atje Keulen-Deelstra
 Netherlands
Anne Henning
 United States

1976 Innsbruck
details
Tatyana Averina
 Soviet Union
Leah Poulos
 United States
Sheila Young
 United States

1980 Lake Placid
details
Natalya Petrusyova
 Soviet Union
Leah Poulos-Mueller
 United States
Sylvia Albrecht
 East Germany

1984 Sarajevo
details
Karin Enke
 East Germany
Andrea Schöne
 East Germany
Natalya Petrusyova
 Soviet Union

1988 Calgary
details
Christa Rothenburger
 East Germany
Karin Enke
 East Germany
Bonnie Blair
 United States

1992 Albertville
details
Bonnie Blair
 United States
Ye Qiaobo
 China
Monique Garbrecht
 Germany

1994 Lillehammer
details
Bonnie Blair
 United States
Anke Baier
 Germany
Ye Qiaobo
 China

1998 Nagano
details
Marianne Timmer
 Netherlands
Christine Witty
 United States
Catriona Le May Doan
 Canada

2002 Salt Lake City
details
Christine Witty
 United States
Sabine Völker
 Germany
Jennifer Rodriguez
 United States

2006 Turin
details
Marianne Timmer
 Netherlands
Cindy Klassen
 Canada
Anni Friesinger
 Germany

2010 Vancouver
details
Christine Nesbitt
 Canada
Annette Gerritsen
 Netherlands
Laurine van Riessen
 Netherlands

2014 Sochi
details
Zhang Hong
 China
Ireen Wüst
 Netherlands
Margot Boer
 Netherlands

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: 1500 metres[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

1960 Squaw Valley
details
Lidiya Skoblikova
 Soviet Union
Elwira Seroczyńska
 Poland
Helena Pilejczyk
 Poland

1964 Innsbruck
details
Lidiya Skoblikova
 Soviet Union
Kaija Mustonen
 Finland
Berta Kolokoltseva
 Soviet Union

1968 Grenoble
details
Kaija Mustonen
 Finland
Carry Geijssen
 Netherlands
Stien Kaiser
 Netherlands

1972 Sapporo
details
Dianne Holum
 United States
Stien Baas-Kaiser
 Netherlands
Atje Keulen-Deelstra
 Netherlands

1976 Innsbruck
details
Galina Stepanskaya
 Soviet Union
Sheila Young
 United States
Tatyana Averina
 Soviet Union

1980 Lake Placid
details
Annie Borckink
 Netherlands
Ria Visser
 Netherlands
Sabine Becker
 East Germany

1984 Sarajevo
details
Karin Enke
 East Germany
Andrea Schöne
 East Germany
Natalya Petrusyova
 Soviet Union

1988 Calgary
details
Yvonne van Gennip
 Netherlands
Karin Enke
 East Germany
Andrea Ehrig
 East Germany

1992 Albertville
details
Jacqueline Börner
 Germany
Gunda Niemann
 Germany
Seiko Hashimoto
 Japan

1994 Lillehammer
details
Emese Hunyady
 Austria
Svetlana Fedotkina
 Russia
Gunda Niemann
 Germany

1998 Nagano
details
Marianne Timmer
 Netherlands
Gunda Niemann-Stirnemann
 Germany
Christine Witty
 United States

2002 Salt Lake City
details
Anni Friesinger
 Germany
Sabine Völker
 Germany
Jennifer Rodriguez
 United States

2006 Turin
details
Cindy Klassen
 Canada
Kristina Groves
 Canada
Ireen Wüst
 Netherlands

2010 Vancouver
details
Ireen Wüst
 Netherlands
Kristina Groves
 Canada
Martina Sáblíková
 Czech Republic

2014 Sochi
details
Jorien ter Mors
 Netherlands
Ireen Wüst
 Netherlands
Lotte van Beek
 Netherlands

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: 3000 metres[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

1960 Squaw Valley
details
Lidiya Skoblikova
 Soviet Union
Valentina Stenina
 Soviet Union
Eevi Huttunen
 Finland

1964 Innsbruck
details
Lidiya Skoblikova
 Soviet Union
Han Pil-Hwa
 North Korea
None awarded

Valentina Stenina
 Soviet Union

1968 Grenoble
details
Ans Schut
 Netherlands
Kaija Mustonen
 Finland
Stien Kaiser
 Netherlands

1972 Sapporo
details
Stien Baas-Kaiser
 Netherlands
Dianne Holum
 United States
Atje Keulen-Deelstra
 Netherlands

1976 Innsbruck
details
Tatyana Averina
 Soviet Union
Andrea Mitscherlich
 East Germany
Lisbeth Korsmo
 Norway

1980 Lake Placid
details
Bjørg Eva Jensen
 Norway
Sabine Becker
 East Germany
Beth Heiden
 United States

1984 Sarajevo
details
Andrea Schöne
 East Germany
Karin Enke
 East Germany
Gabi Schönbrunn
 East Germany

1988 Calgary
details
Yvonne van Gennip
 Netherlands
Andrea Ehrig
 East Germany
Gabi Zange
 East Germany

1992 Albertville
details
Gunda Niemann
 Germany
Heike Warnicke
 Germany
Emese Hunyady
 Austria

1994 Lillehammer
details
Svetlana Bazhanova
 Russia
Emese Hunyady
 Austria
Claudia Pechstein
 Germany

1998 Nagano
details
Gunda Niemann-Stirnemann
 Germany
Claudia Pechstein
 Germany
Anni Friesinger
 Germany

2002 Salt Lake City
details
Claudia Pechstein
 Germany
Renate Groenewold
 Netherlands
Cindy Klassen
 Canada

2006 Turin
details
Ireen Wüst
 Netherlands
Renate Groenewold
 Netherlands
Cindy Klassen
 Canada

2010 Vancouver
details
Martina Sáblíková
 Czech Republic
Stephanie Beckert
 Germany
Kristina Groves
 Canada

2014 Sochi
details
Ireen Wüst
 Netherlands
Martina Sáblíková
 Czech Republic
Olga Graf
 Russia

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: 5000 metres[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

1988 Calgary
details
Yvonne van Gennip
 Netherlands
Andrea Ehrig
 East Germany
Gabi Zange
 East Germany

1992 Albertville
details
Gunda Niemann
 Germany
Heike Warnicke
 Germany
Claudia Pechstein
 Germany

1994 Lillehammer
details
Claudia Pechstein
 Germany
Gunda Niemann
 Germany
Hiromi Yamamoto
 Japan

1998 Nagano
details
Claudia Pechstein
 Germany
Gunda Niemann-Stirnemann
 Germany
Lyudmila Prokasheva
 Kazakhstan

2002 Salt Lake City
details
Claudia Pechstein
 Germany
Gretha Smit
 Netherlands
Clara Hughes
 Canada

2006 Turin
details
Clara Hughes
 Canada
Claudia Pechstein
 Germany
Cindy Klassen
 Canada

2010 Vancouver
details
Martina Sáblíková
 Czech Republic
Stephanie Beckert
 Germany
Clara Hughes
 Canada

2014 Sochi
details
Martina Sáblíková
 Czech Republic
Ireen Wüst
 Netherlands
Carien Kleibeuker
 Netherlands

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: Mass start[edit]

text: Team pursuit[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

2006 Turin
details
 Germany (GER)
Daniela Anschütz-Thoms
Anni Friesinger
Lucille Opitz
Claudia Pechstein
Sabine Völker
 Canada (CAN)
Kristina Groves
Clara Hughes
Cindy Klassen
Christine Nesbitt
Shannon Rempel
 Russia (RUS)
Yekaterina Abramova
Varvara Barysheva
Galina Likhachova
Yekaterina Lobysheva
Svetlana Vysokova

2010 Vancouver
details
 Germany (GER)
Daniela Anschütz-Thoms
Stephanie Beckert
Anni Friesinger-Postma
Katrin Mattscherodt
 Japan (JPN)
Masako Hozumi
Nao Kodaira
Maki Tabata
 Poland (POL)
Katarzyna Bachleda-Curuś
Katarzyna Woźniak
Luiza Złotkowska

2014 Sochi
details
 Netherlands (NED)
Lotte van Beek
Marrit Leenstra
Jorien ter Mors
Ireen Wüst
 Poland (POL)
Katarzyna Bachleda-Curuś
Natalia Czerwonka
Katarzyna Woźniak
Luiza Złotkowska
 Russia (RUS)
Olga Graf
Yekaterina Lobysheva
Yekaterina Shikhova
Yuliya Skokova

2018 Pyeongchang
details

text: Discontinued[edit]

text: Men's all-round[edit]

text:
Games
Gold
Silver
Bronze

1924 Chamonix
details
Clas Thunberg
 Finland
Roald Larsen
 Norway
Julius Skutnabb
 Finland

text: Statistics[edit]

text: Athlete medal leaders[edit]

text:
Athlete
Nation
Olympics
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Total

Pechstein, ClaudiaClaudia Pechstein
 Germany (GER)
1992–2006
5
2
2
9

Wust, IreenIreen Wüst
 Netherlands (NED)
2006–2014
4
3
1
8

Enke, KarinKarin Enke
 East Germany (GDR)
1980–1988
3
4
1
8

Niemann, GundaGunda Niemann
 Germany (GER)
1988–1998
3
4
1
8

Thunberg, ClasClas Thunberg
 Finland (FIN)
1924–1928
5
1
1
7

Ballangrud, IvarIvar Ballangrud
 Norway (NOR)
1928–1936
4
2
1
7

Kramer, SvenSven Kramer
 Netherlands (NED)
2006–2014
3
2
2
7

Schone, AndreaAndrea Schöne
 East Germany (GDR)
1976–1988
1
5
1
7

Skoblikova, LidiyaLidiya Skoblikova
 Soviet Union (URS)
1960–1968
6
0
0
6

Blair, BonnieBonnie Blair
 United States (USA)
1984–1994
5
0
1
6

Klassen, CindyCindy Klassen
 Canada (CAN)
2002–2006
1
2
3
6

Ritsma, RintjeRintje Ritsma
 Netherlands (NED)
1992–2006
0
2
4
6

Larsen, RoaldRoald Larsen
 Norway (NOR)
1924–1928
0
2
4
6

Heiden, EricEric Heiden
 United States (USA)
1976–1980
5
0
0
5

Koss, Johann OlavJohann Olav Koss
 Norway (NOR)
1992–1994
4
1
0
5

Grishin, YevgenyYevgeny Grishin
 Soviet Union (URS)
1956–1968
4
1
0
5

Sablikova, MartinaMartina Sáblíková
 Czech Republic (CZE)
2006–2014
3
1
1
5

Friesinger-Postma, AnniAnni Friesinger-Postma
 Germany (GER)
1998–2010
3
0
2
5

Johannesen, KnutKnut Johannesen
 Norway (NOR)
1956–1964
2
2
1
5

Hedrick, ChadChad Hedrick
 United States (USA)
2006–2010
1
2
2
5

text: Medals per year[edit]

text: = Countries that did not participate in the Olympic Winter Games in that year, or didn't exist at the time.

text: Bolded numbers indicate the highest medal count at that year's Olympic Games.

text:
Country
24
28
32
36
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
94
98
02
06
10
14
Total

 Austria (AUT)
–
–
–
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2
1
2
–
–
–
–
−
6

 Belarus (BLR)

1
–
–
–
–
−
1

 Belgium (BEL)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–

–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1
–
–
–
−
1

 Canada (CAN)
–
–
5
–
–
1
–
–
–
–
–
1
1
3
–
–
1
5
3
8
5
2
35

 China (CHN)

–
–
–
2
1
–
–
2
1
1
7

 Czech Republic (CZE)

–
–
–
–
3
2
5

 Finland (FIN)
8
4
–
4
2
–
1
1
2
2
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
−
24

 Germany (GER)

–
–
–

–

11
6
6
8
3
4
−
38

 United Team of Germany (EUA)

–
2
–

2

 East Germany (GDR)

–
–
1
4
11
13

29

 West Germany (FRG)

1
2
–
–
–
–

3

 Italy (ITA)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
3
–
−
3

 Japan (JPN)

–
–
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1
1
4
2
3
1
–
3
−
15

 Kazakhstan (KAZ)

–
1
–
–
–
−
1

 Netherlands (NED)

–

–
–
3
–
1
1
9
9
5
4
–
7
4
4
11
8
9
7
23
105

 North Korea (PRK)

1

–

–
–
–

–

–
–

1

 Norway (NOR)
7
6
2
6
6
6
2
3
7
4
4
5
7
1
–
5
5
1
2
–
1
−
80

 Poland (POL)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1
3
6

 Russia (RUS)

5
–
–
3
2
3
13

 South Korea (KOR)

–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1
–
–
–
1
5
2
9

 Soviet Union (URS)

7
12
12
2
3
9
4
9
2

60

 Sweden (SWE)
–
–
–
–
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
–
–
2
2
–
–
–
–
–
–
−
16

 United States (USA)
1
1
5
1
2
2
–
2
1
5
4
6
8
–
3
2
3
2
8
7
4
−
67

Year
24
28
32
36
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
94
98
02
06
10
14
–

text: Medal sweep events[edit]

text: These are events in which athletes from one NOC won all three medals.

text:
Games
Event
NOC
Gold
Silver
Bronze

1964 Innsbruck
Women's 500 meters
 Soviet Union (URS)
Lidiya Skoblikova
Irina Yegorova
Tatyana Sidorova

Men's 5000 meters
 Norway (NOR)
Knut Johannesen
Per Ivar Moe
Fred Anton Maier

1984 Sarajevo
Women's 3000 meters
 East Germany (GDR)
Andrea Schöne
Karin Enke
Gabi Schönbrunn

1992 Albertville
Women's 5000 meters
 Germany (GER)
Gunda Niemann
Heike Warnicke
Claudia Pechstein

1998 Nagano
Men's 10,000 meters
 Netherlands (NED)
Gianni Romme
Bob de Jong
Rintje Ritsma

Women's 3000 meters
 Germany (GER)
Gunda Niemann-Stirnemann
Claudia Pechstein
Anni Friesinger

2014 Sochi
Men's 5000 meters
 Netherlands (NED)
Sven Kramer
Jan Blokhuijsen
Jorrit Bergsma

Men's 500 meters
Michel Mulder
Jan Smeekens
Ronald Mulder

Women's 1500 meters *
Jorien ter Mors
Ireen Wüst
Lotte van Beek

Men's 10,000 meters
Jorrit Bergsma
Sven Kramer
Bob de Jong

text: *The Netherlands' positions at the 2014 Winter Olympics women's 1500 meters is the first, and only, time in Olympic speed skating history that athletes from one country have taken positions 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Marrit Leenstra).


document_title: Emergency contraception

question_text: when was the morning after pill introduced in the uk

root

text: Emergency contraception

text: Emergency contraceptive pills[edit]

text: Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) (sometimes referred to as emergency hormonal contraception, EHC) may contain higher doses of the same hormones (estrogens, progestins, or both) found in regular combined oral contraceptive pills. Taken after unprotected sexual intercourse or contraceptive failure, such higher doses may prevent pregnancy from occurring.[5]

tag: p

text: Types[edit]

text: Three types of emergency contraceptive pills are available: combined estrogen and progestin pills, progestin-only (levonorgestrel, LNG) pills, and antiprogestin (ulipristal acetate or mifepristone) pills.[6] Progestin-only and antiprogestin pills are available as dedicated (specifically packaged for use as) emergency contraceptive pills.[6][7] Combined estrogen and progestin pills are no longer available as dedicated emergency contraceptive pills, but certain regular combined oral contraceptive pills may be used as emergency contraceptive pills.[6]

text: Progestin-only emergency contraceptive pills contain levonorgestrel, either as a single tablet or as a split dose of two tablets taken 12 hours apart, effective up to 72 hours after intercourse.[6] Progestin-only ECPs are sold under many different brand names.[8][9][10] Progestin-only ECPs are available over-the-counter (OTC) in several countries (e.g. Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, India, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, South Africa, Sweden, United States), from a pharmacist without a prescription, and available with a prescription in some other countries.[8][9][10]

text: The antiprogestin ulipristal acetate is available as a micronized emergency contraceptive tablet, effective up to 120 hours after intercourse.[6][7] Ulipristal acetate ECPs developed by HRA Pharma are available by prescription in over 50 countries under the brand names ellaOne, ella (marketed by Watson Pharmaceuticals in the United States), Duprisal 30, Ulipristal 30, and UPRIS.[8][9][10][11]

text: The antiprogestin mifepristone (also known as RU-486) is available in five countries as a low-dose or mid-dose emergency contraceptive tablet, effective up to 120 hours after intercourse.[6][7] Low-dose mifepristone ECPs are available by prescription in Armenia, Russia, Ukraine, and Vietnam and from a pharmacist without a prescription in China.[8][9] Mid-dose mifepristone ECPs are available by prescription in China and Vietnam.[8][9]

text: Combined estrogen (ethinylestradiol) and progestin (levonorgestrel or norgestrel) pills used to be available as dedicated emergency contraceptive pills under several brand names: Schering PC4, Tetragynon, Neoprimavlar, and Preven (in the United States) but were withdrawn after more effective dedicated progestin-only (levonorgestrel) emergency contraceptive pills with fewer side effects became available.[6] If other more effective dedicated emergency contraceptive pills (levonorgestrel, ulipristal acetate, or mifepristone) are not available, specific combinations of regular combined oral contraceptive pills can be taken in split doses 12 hours apart (the Yuzpe regimen), effective up to 72 hours after intercourse.[6] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved this off-label use of certain brands of regular combined oral contraceptive pills in 1997.[5] As of 2014, there are 26 brands of regular combined oral contraceptive pills containing levonorgestrel or norgestrel available in the United States that can be used in the emergency contraceptive Yuzpe regimen.[6]

text: Effectiveness[edit]

text: Ulipristal acetate, and mid-dose mifepristone is more effective than levonorgestrel, which is more effective than the Yupse method.[12]

text: The effectiveness of emergency contraception is expressed as a percentage reduction in pregnancy rate for a single use of EC. Using an example of "75% effective", the effectiveness calculation thus:

text: ... these numbers do not translate into a pregnancy rate of 25 percent. Rather, they mean that if 1,000 women have unprotected intercourse in the middle two weeks of their menstrual cycles, approximately 80 will become pregnant. Use of emergency contraceptive pills would reduce this number by 75 percent, to 20 women.[13]

text: The progestin-only regimen (using levonorgestrel) has an 89% effectiveness. As of 2006[update], the labeling on the U.S. brand Plan B explained this effectiveness rate by stating, "Seven out of every eight women who would have gotten pregnant will not become pregnant."[14]

text: In 1999, a meta-analysis of eight studies of the combined (Yuzpe) regimen concluded that the best point estimate of effectiveness was 74%.[15] A 2003 analysis of two of the largest combined (Yuzpe) regimen studies, using a different calculation method, found effectiveness estimates of 47% and 53%.[16]

text: For both the progestin-only and Yuzpe regimens, the effectiveness of emergency contraception is highest when taken within 12 hours of intercourse and declines over time.[17][18][19] The World Health Organization (WHO) suggested that reasonable effectiveness may continue for up to 120 hours (5 days) after intercourse.[20]

text: For 10 mg of mifepristone taken up to 120 hours (5 days) after intercourse, the combined estimate from three trials was an effectiveness of 83%.[21] A review found that a moderate dose of mifepristone is better than LNG or Yuzpe.[22]

text: HRA Pharma changed its packaging information for Norlevo (which has dosage and chemical makeup identical to many other EHCs) in November 2013 warning that the drug loses effectiveness in women who weigh more than 165 pounds and is completely ineffective for women who weigh over 176 pounds.[23][24]

text: Safety[edit]

text: The most common side effect reported by users of emergency contraceptive pills was nausea (50.5% of 979 Yuzpe regimen users and 23.1% of 977 levonorgestrel-only users in the 1998 WHO trial; 14.3% of 2,720 levonorgestrel-only users in the 2002 WHO trial); vomiting is much less common and unusual with levonorgestrel-only ECPs (18.8% of 979 Yuzpe regimen users and 5.6% of levonorgestrel-only users in the 1998 WHO trial; 1.4% of 2,720 levonorgestrel-only users in the 2002 WHO trial).[17][20][25] Anti-emetics are not routinely recommended with levonorgestrel-only ECPs.[25][26] If a woman vomits within 2 hours of taking a levonorgestrel-only ECP, she should take a further dose as soon as possible.[25][27]

text: Other common side effects (each reported by less than 20% of levonorgestrel-only users in both the 1998 and 2002 WHO trials) were abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, dizziness, and breast tenderness.[17][20][25] Side effects usually do not occur for more than a few days after treatment, and they generally resolve within 24 hours.[6]

text: Temporary disruption of the menstrual cycle is also commonly experienced. If taken before ovulation, the high doses of progestogen in levonorgestrel treatments may induce progestogen withdrawal bleeding a few days after the pills are taken. One study found that about half of women who used levonorgestrel ECPs experienced bleeding within 7 days of taking the pills.[28] If levonorgestrel is taken after ovulation, it may increase the length of the luteal phase, thus delaying menstruation by a few days.[29] Mifepristone, if taken before ovulation, may delay ovulation by 3–4 days[30] (delayed ovulation may result in a delayed menstruation). These disruptions only occur in the cycle in which ECPs were taken; subsequent cycle length is not significantly affected.[28] If a woman's menstrual period is delayed by two weeks or more, it is advised that she take a pregnancy test.[31] (Earlier testing may not give accurate results.)

text: Existing pregnancy is not a contraindication in terms of safety, as there is no known harm to the woman, the course of her pregnancy, or the fetus if progestin-only or combined emergency contraception pills are accidentally used, but EC is not indicated for a woman with a known or suspected pregnancy because it is not effective in women who are already pregnant.[6][32][33][31][34][35][36][37][38]

text: The World Health Organization (WHO) lists no medical condition for which the risks of emergency contraceptive pills outweigh the benefits.[35] The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and experts on emergency contraception have concluded that progestin-only ECPs may be preferable to combined ECPs containing estrogen in women with a history of blood clots, stroke, or migraine.[6][32][33]

text: There are no medical conditions in which progestin-only ECPs are contraindicated.[6][32][33][31][34][35][36] Current venous thromboembolism, current or past history of breast cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, and acute intermittent porphyria are conditions where the advantages of using emergency contraceptive pills generally outweigh the theoretical or proven risks.[36]

text: ECPs, like all other contraceptives, reduce the absolute risk of ectopic pregnancy by preventing pregnancies and there is no increase in the relative risk of ectopic pregnancy in women who become pregnant after using progestin-only ECPs.[6][39][40]

text: Interactions[edit]

text: The herbal preparation of St John's wort and some enzyme-inducing drugs (e.g. anticonvulsants or rifampicin) may reduce the effectiveness of ECP, and a larger dose may be required.[25][41]

text: Intrauterine device[edit]

text: An alternative to emergency contraceptive pills is the copper-T intrauterine device (IUD) which can be used up to 5 days after unprotected intercourse to prevent pregnancy. Insertion of an IUD is more effective than use of Emergency Contraceptive Pills - pregnancy rates when used as emergency contraception are the same as with normal IUD use. IUDs may be left in place following the subsequent menstruation to provide ongoing contraception (3–10 years depending upon type).[42]

text: As regular contraception[edit]

text: One brand of levonorgestrel pills was marketed as an ongoing method of postcoital contraception.[43] However, there are serious drawbacks to such use of postcoital high-dose progestin-only oral contraceptive pills, especially if they are not used according to their package directions, but are instead used according to the package directions of emergency contraceptive pills:

text:
Due to the increasing severity of side effects with frequent use, Postinor is only recommended for women who have intercourse four or fewer times per month.[43][44]
If not used according to their package directions, but instead used according to the directions of levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills (up to 72 hours after intercourse), they would be estimated to have a "perfect-use" (when not used according to their package directions but used as directed on the package directions for levonorgestrel emergency contraception pills) pregnancy rate of 20% per year when used as the sole means of contraception (as compared to a 40% annual pregnancy rate for the Yuzpe regimen).[45] These failure rates would be higher than those of almost all other birth control methods, including the rhythm method and withdrawal.[46]
Like all hormonal methods, postcoital high-dose progestin-only oral contraceptive pills do not protect against sexually transmitted infections.[47]

tag: ul

text: ECPs are generally recommended for backup or "emergency" use, rather than as the primary means of contraception. They are intended for use when other means of contraception have failed—for example, if a woman has forgotten to take a birth control pill or when a condom is torn during sex.[45]

text: Relationship to high risk sex and abortion[edit]

text: The current (December 2012) American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Policy Statement on Emergency Contraception says: "Despite multiple studies showing no increased risk behavior and evidence that hormonal emergency contraception will not disrupt an established pregnancy, public and medical discourse reflects that personal values of physicians and pharmacists continue to affect emergency-contraception access, particularly for adolescents."[48]

text: The latest (December 2013) review by emergency contraception experts Trussell and Raymond says: "Published evidence would seem to demonstrate convincingly that making ECPs more widely available does not increase risk-taking or adversely affect regular contraceptive use". . . ."However, reanalysis of one of the randomized trials suggests that easier access to ECPs may have increased the frequency of coital acts with the potential to lead to pregnancy."[6] and notes that four randomized controlled trials have found that advanced provision of emergency contraceptive pills did not increase rates of sexually transmitted infections or sexual risk taking.[49][50][51][52] Trussell and Raymond noted that after one of the four studies had been reanalysed later, the data did show higher sexual risk-taking,[6] specifically substituting in some cases emergency contraceptives for contraceptives such as condoms that are more effective.

text: In France, Sweden, and Britain—where Yuzpe-regimen EC had been available by prescription for more than a decade and progestin-only EC has been available without a prescription for 8, 6, and 2 years respectively—the abortion rate was stable or higher during that time period.[53] Another study concluded that distribution of free, advance supplies of EC to large numbers of women in Scotland did not reduce abortion rates.[54] A randomized controlled trial of 2000 women in China compared women with advance access to EC to women without access, and noted that the pregnancy rate was the same between the two groups. The study observed that "...providing EC in advance increases use, but there is no direct evidence that it reduces unintended pregnancy" and concluded that EC may not lower abortion rates.[55]

text: In September 2006, emergency contraception expert Anna Glasier wrote a BMJ editorial entitled "Emergency Contraception. Is it worth all the fuss?" that said in closing: "So is emergency contraception worth the fuss? If you are a woman who has had unprotected sex then of course it is, because emergency contraception will prevent pregnancy in some women some of the time—and if you don’t want to get pregnant anything is better than nothing. If you are the CMAJ’s editor or FDA commissioner then yes, because scientific freedom is worth the fight. If you are looking for an intervention that will reduce abortion rates, emergency contraception may not be the solution, and perhaps you should concentrate most on encouraging people to use contraception before or during sex, not after it."[56]

text: EC and sexual assault[edit]

text: Before EC was used in the general population or defined as "emergency contraception," it was used, beginning in the 1960s and 70s, specifically for women who had been sexually assaulted.[57][58] Pregnancy rates among rape victims of child-bearing age are around 5%; in the U.S., about half of rape victims who become pregnant have abortions.[59] Although EC is commonly used as an option for victims of sexual assault, some researchers believe such use is a public health measure that is not sufficiently widespread.[60]

text: Mechanism of action[edit]

text: The primary mechanism of action of progestogen-only emergency contraceptive pills is to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation.[3][25][39][61][62][63] The best available evidence is that they do not have any post-fertilization effects such as the prevention of implantation.[3][25][39][61][62][63] The U.S. FDA-approved labels and European EMA-approved labels (except for HRA Pharma's NorLevo) levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills (based on labels for regular oral contraceptive pills) say they may cause endometrial changes that discourage implantation.[64][65][66] Daily use of regular oral contraceptive pills can alter the endometrium (although this has not been proven to interfere with implantation), but the isolated use of a levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pill does not have time to alter the endometrium.[64] In March 2011, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) issued a statement that: "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Language on implantation should not be included in LNG ECP product labeling."[64][67] In June 2012, a New York Times editorial called on the FDA to remove from the label the unsupported suggestion that levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills inhibit implantation.[68] In November 2013, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved a change to the label for HRA Pharma's NorLevo saying it cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.[69]

text: Progestogen-only emergency contraceptive does not appear to affect the function of the Fallopian tubes or increase the rate of ectopic pregnancies.[70]

text: The primary mechanism of action of progesterone receptor modulator emergency contraceptive pills like low-dose and mid-dose mifepristone and ulipristal acetate is to prevent fertilization by inhibition or delay of ovulation.[3][25][61][62][63][71] One clinical study found that post-ovulatory administration of ulipristal acetate altered the endometrium, but whether the changes would inhibit implantation is unknown.[3][72] The European EMA-approved labels for ulipristal acetate emergency contraceptive pills do not mention an effect on implantation, but the U.S. FDA-approved label says: "alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy."[64][73][74]

text: The primary mechanism of action of copper-releasing intrauterine devices (IUDs) as emergency contraceptives is to prevent fertilization because of copper toxicity to sperm and ova.[3][25] The very high effectiveness of copper-releasing IUDs as emergency contraceptives implies that they must also prevent some pregnancies by post-fertilization effects such as prevention of implantation.[3][25][61]

text: History[edit]

text: In 1966, gynecologist John McLean Morris and biologist Gertrude Van Wagenen at the Yale School of Medicine reported the successful use of oral high-dose estrogen pills as post-coital contraceptives in women and rhesus macaque monkeys, respectively.[75][76] A few different drugs were studied, with a focus on high-dose estrogens, and it was originally hoped that postcoital contraception would prove viable as an ongoing contraceptive method.[77]

text: The first widely used methods were five-day treatments with high-dose estrogens, using diethylstilbestrol (DES) in the US and ethinylestradiol in the Netherlands by Dr. Haspels.[78][79]

text: In the early 1970s, the Yuzpe regimen was developed by A. Albert Yuzpe in 1974;[80] progestin-only postcoital contraception was investigated (1975);[81] and the copper IUD was first studied for use as emergency contraception (1975).[82] Danazol was tested in the early 1980s in the hopes that it would have fewer side effects than Yuzpe, but was found to be ineffective.[83]

text: The Yuzpe regimen became the standard course of treatment for postcoital contraception in many countries in the 1980s. The first prescription-only combined estrogen-progestin dedicated product, Schering PC4 (ethinylestradiol and norgestrel), was approved in the UK in January 1984 and first marketed in October 1984.[84] Schering introduced a second prescription-only combined product, Tetragynon (ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel) in Germany in 1985.[1] By 1997, Schering AG dedicated prescription-only combined products had been approved in only 9 countries: the UK (Schering PC4), New Zealand (Schering PC4), South Africa (E-Gen-C), Germany (Tetragynon), Switzerland (Tetragynon), Denmark (Tetragynon), Norway (Tetragynon), Sweden (Tetragynon) and Finland (Neoprimavlar); and had been withdrawn from marketing in New Zealand in 1997 to prevent it being sold over-the-counter.[2] [3][permanent dead link] [4] Regular combined oral contraceptive pills (which were less expensive and more widely available) were more commonly used for the Yuzpe regimen even in countries where dedicated products were available.[85]

text: Over time, interest in progestin-only treatments increased. The Special Program on Human Reproduction (HRP), an international organization whose members include the World Bank and World Health Organization, "played a pioneering role in emergency contraception" by "confirming the effectiveness of levonorgestrel."[86] After the WHO conducted a large trial comparing Yuzpe and levonorgestrel in 1998,[87][88] combined estrogen-progestin products were gradually withdrawn from some markets (Preven in the United States discontinued May 2004, Schering PC4 in the UK discontinued October 2001, and Tetragynon in France) in favor of progestin-only EC, although prescription-only dedicated Yuzpe regimen products are still available in some countries.

text: In 2002, China became the first country in which mifepristone was registered for use as EC.

text: Calculating effectiveness[edit]

text: Early studies of emergency contraceptives did not attempt to calculate a failure rate; they simply reported the number of women who became pregnant after using an emergency contraceptive. Since 1980, clinical trials of emergency contraception have first calculated probable pregnancies in the study group if no treatment were given. The effectiveness is calculated by dividing observed pregnancies by the estimated number of pregnancies without treatment.[89]

text: Placebo-controlled trials that could give a precise measure of the pregnancy rate without treatment would be unethical, so the effectiveness percentage is based on estimated pregnancy rates. These are currently estimated using variants of the calendar method.[90] Women with irregular cycles for any reason (including recent hormone use such as oral contraceptives and breastfeeding) must be excluded from such calculations. Even for women included in the calculation, the limitations of calendar methods of fertility determination have long been recognized. In their February 2014 emergency review article, Trussell and Raymond note:

text: Calculation of effectiveness, and particularly the denominator of the fraction, involves many assumptions that are difficult to validate...The risk of pregnancy for women requesting ECPs appears to be lower than assumed in the estimates of ECP efficacy, which are consequently likely to be overestimates. Yet, precise estimates of efficacy may not be highly relevant to many women who have had unprotected intercourse, since ECPs are often the only available treatment.[6]

text: In 1999, hormonal assay was suggested as a more accurate method of estimating fertility for EC studies.[91]

text: United States[edit]

text: DES[edit]

text:
In 1971, a New England Journal of Medicine editorial calling attention to previously published studies on the use of DES as a postcoital contraceptive at Yale University, and a large study published in JAMA on the use of DES as a postcoital contraceptive at the University of Michigan, led to off-label use of DES as a postcoital contraceptive becoming prevalent at many university health services.[92][93]
In May 1973, in an attempt to restrict off-label use of DES as a postcoital contraceptive to emergency situations such as rape, a FDA Drug Bulletin was sent to all U.S. physicians and pharmacists that said the FDA had approved, under restricted conditions, postcoital contraceptive use of DES.[94] (In February 1975, the FDA Commissioner testified that the only error in the May 1973 FDA Drug Bulletin was that the FDA had not approved postcoital contraceptive use of DES.)[95]
In September 1973, the FDA published a proposed rule specifying patient labeling and special packaging requirements for any manufacturer seeking FDA approval to market DES as a postcoital contraceptive, inviting manufacturers to submit abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for that indication, and notifying manufacturers that the FDA intended to order the withdrawal of DES 25 mg tablets (which were being used off-label as postcoital contraceptives).[96][97][97][98]
In late 1973, Eli Lilly, the largest U.S. manufacturer of DES, discontinued its DES 25 mg tablets and in March 1974 sent a letter to all U.S. physicians and pharmacists telling them it did not recommend use of DES as a postcoital contraceptive.[95]
Only one pharmaceutical company, Tablicaps, Inc., a small manufacturer of generic drugs, ever submitted (in January 1974) an ANDA for use of DES as an emergency postcoital contraceptive, and the FDA never approved it.[95][99]
In February 1975, the FDA said it had not yet approved DES as a postcoital contraceptive, but would after March 8, 1975 permit marketing of DES for that indication in emergency situations such as rape or incest if a manufacturer obtained an approved ANDA that provided patient labeling and special packaging as set out in a FDA final rule published in February 1975.[100] To discourage off-label use of DES as a postcoital contraceptive, in February 1975 the FDA ordered DES 25 mg (and higher) tablets removed from the market and ordered the labeling of lower doses (5 mg and lower) of DES still approved for other indications be changed to state: "THIS DRUG PRODUCT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A POSTCOITAL CONTRACEPTIVE" in block capital letters on the first line of the physician prescribing information package insert and in a prominent and conspicuous location of the container and carton label.[97][101]
In March 1978, a FDA Drug Bulletin was sent to all U.S. physicians and pharmacists which said: "FDA has not yet given approval for any manufacturer to market DES as a postcoital contraceptive. The Agency, however, will approve this indication for emergency situations such as rape or incest if a manufacturer provides patient labeling and special packaging. To discourage 'morning after' use of DES without patient labeling, FDA has removed from the market the 25 mg tablets of DES, formerly used for this purpose."[102]
In the 1980s, off-label use of the Yuzpe regimen superseded off-label use of DES for postcoital contraception.[99][103][104]

DES is no longer commercially available in the U.S.; Eli Lilly, the last U.S. manufacturer, ceased production in spring 1997.[105]

text: Preven[edit]

text:
On February 25, 1997, the FDA posted a notice in the Federal Register saying it had concluded that the Yuzpe regimen was safe and effective for off-label use as postcoital EC, was prepared to accept NDAs for COCPs labeled as ECPs, and listed 6 then available COCPs (there are now 22) that could be used as ECPs.[5]
On September 1, 1998, the FDA approved the prescription Yuzpe regimen Preven Emergency Contraception Kit (which contained a urine pregnancy test and 4 COCPs).[106] Preven was discontinued in May 2004.[107]

text: Plan B[edit]

text:
On July 28, 1999, the FDA approved the prescription progestin-only Plan B (two 750 µg levonorgestrel pills) emergency contraceptive.[108]
On August 24, 2006, the FDA approved nonprescription behind-the-counter access to Plan B from pharmacies staffed by a licensed pharmacist for women 18 or older; a prescription-only form of Plan B was made available for younger females aged 17 and younger.[109]
On November 6, 2006, Barr Pharmaceuticals announced that its subsidiary, Duramed Pharmaceuticals, had initiated shipment of dual-label Plan B OTC/Rx and it would be available in pharmacies across the U.S. by mid-November 2006.[110]
On March 23, 2009, a US judge ordered the FDA to allow 17-year-olds to acquire Plan B without a prescription.[111] This now changes the August 24, 2006 ruling and Plan B is now available "behind the counter" for men and women. There is a prescription method available for girls under 17.
On April 30, 2013, the FDA approved (with three-year marketing exclusivity) Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Plan B One-Step for sale without a prescription to anyone age 15 or over who can show proof of age such as a driver's license, birth certificate, or passport to a drug store retail clerk.[112] Generic one-pill levonorgestrel emergency contraceptives and all two-pill levonorgestrel emergency contraceptives will remain restricted to sale from a pharmacist—without a prescription to anyone age 17 or over who can show proof of age.[112]
On June 10, 2013, the Obama administration ceased trying to block the over-the-counter availability the pill for all women and girls. With this reversal it means that any woman or girl will be able to purchase the Plan B One-Step without a prescription.[113]

text: Availability[edit]


document_title: First Epistle of John

question_text: who did john write to in 1 john

question_tokens: who did john write to in 1 john

text: First Epistle of John

text: Content[edit]

text: The main themes of the epistle are love and fellowship with God.[2][3] The author describes various tests by which readers may ascertain whether or not their communion with God is genuine, and teaches that the proof of spiritual regeneration is a life of active righteousness.[4] It also distinguishes between the world (which is full of evil and under the dominion of Satan) and the children of God (who are set apart from the world).[5]

text: Style[edit]

text: The epistle is not written in the same form as the other biblical epistles, lacking an epistolary opening or conclusion.[6] The epistle is written in a simple style, without syntactical flourishes,[6] and makes frequent use of asyndeton, where related thoughts are placed next to one another without conjunctions.[7] In contrast to the linear style used in the Pauline epistles, John's thought moves in loops or circles forming a slowly advancing sequence of thought.[5] This is similar to the parallel structure of Hebrew poetry, in which the second verse of a couplet often carries the same meaning as the first, though in the epistle the frequent recapitulations of already expressed ideas serve also to add to what has previously been said.[8] In summary, the epistle may be said to exhibit a paraenetic style which is "marked by personal appeal, contrasts of right and wrong, true and false, and an occasional rhetorical question".[6]

text: Some scholars have proposed the idea that the epistle is really John's commentary on a selection of traditional parallel couplets. While this theory, first propounded by Ernst von Dobschütz and Rudolf Bultmann, is not universally accepted, Amos Wilder writes that, "It is at least clear that there are considerable and sometimes continuous elements in the epistle whose style distinguishes them from that of the author both with respect to poetic structure and syntactic usage."[9]

text: Authorship[edit]

text: The epistle is traditionally held to have been composed by John the Evangelist, at Ephesus,[10] when the writer was in advanced age. The epistle's content, language and conceptual style are very similar to the Gospel of John, 2 John, and 3 John, indicating that they were written by the same author.[1] Indeed, at the end of the 19th century scholar Ernest DeWitt Burton wrote that there could be "no reasonable doubt" that 1 John and the gospel were written by the same author,[11] and Amos Wilder has said that, "Early Christian tradition and the great majority of modern scholars have agreed on the common authorship of these writings, even where the author has not been identified with the apostle John."[2] This majority view is typified by the Swiss Reformer Johannes Oecolampadius, who, in summarizing the career of the beloved apostle, refers to his first epistle as "the purest gospel."[12]

text: However, other modern scholars have challenged this position. Though the common authorship of the three epistles is still almost universally accepted, scholars such as Heinrich Julius Holtzmann and C. H. Dodd have maintained that the epistle and the gospel were written by different authors.[2] There are at least two principal arguments for this view. The first is that the epistle often uses a demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of a sentence, then a particle or conjunction, followed by an explanation or definition of the demonstrative at the end of the sentence, a stylistic technique which is not used in the gospel.[6] The second is that the author of the epistle "uses the conditional sentence in a variety of rhetorical figures which are unknown to the gospel".[13]

text: Purpose[edit]

text: "The Fourth Gospel addresses itself to the challenges posed by Judaism and others outside Johannine circles who have rejected the community's vision of Jesus as preexistent Son, sent by the Father. The epistles (First, Second, and Third John) "describe the fracturing of the Johannine community itself".[14]

text: The author wrote the epistle so that the joy of his audience would "be full" (1:4) and that they would "not practice sin" (2:1) and that "you who believe in the name of the Son of God... may know that you have eternal life" (5:13). We can therefore distinguish in the epistle both a general purpose (to increase mutual joy) and a specific purpose (to provide readers with tests by which they might assure themselves of their salvation).[15] It appears as though the author was concerned about heretical teachers that had been influencing churches under his care.[10] Such teachers were considered Antichrists (2:18–19) who had once been church leaders but whose teaching became heterodox. It appears that these teachers taught a form of docetism in which Jesus came to earth as a spirit without a real body of flesh (4:2) that his death on the cross was not as a true atonement for sins (1:7).[10] It appears that John might have also been rebuking a proto-Gnostic named Cerinthus, who also denied the true humanity of Christ.[citation needed]

text: The purpose of the author (1:1–4) is to declare the Word of Life to those to whom he writes, in order that they might be united in fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. He shows that the means of union with God are, (1) on the part of Christ, his atoning work (1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10, 14; 5:11, 12) and his advocacy (2:1); and (2), on the part of man, holiness (1:6), obedience (2:3), purity (3:3), faith (3:23; 4:3; 5:5), and love (2:7, 8; 3:14; 4:7; 5:1).

text: Whereas the Gospel of John was written to unbelievers, this epistle was written to those who were already believers (5:13).[15] It seems likely that its audience was largely gentile rather than Jewish, since it contains few Old Testament quotations or distinctly Jewish forms of expression.[10] The epistle was probably carried by itinerant missionaries to different churches throughout the region and read aloud to the congregations.[16]

text: Johannine Comma[edit]

text: A Trinitarian gloss added to Latin translations of the epistle in the 4th century was interpolated in the text over the course of the Middle Ages, known as the Johannine Comma.[17] Although no Greek manuscripts before the 15th century include the passage, Erasmus added it to later editions of his edition of the New Testament, beginning in 1522.[18] Bibles translated from his edition integrate the passage, including the King James Version (1611), which renders it as follows (in italics):

text: 7For there are three that beare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that beare witnesse in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.

text: Translations made since the 18th century and based on a critical edition do not include this text, or include it as a footnote.


document_title: Bantu peoples

question_text: in what area of africa did the early bantu originate

text: Bantu peoples

text: Etymology[edit]

text: The word Bantu, and its variations, means "people" or "humans". The root in Proto-Bantu is reconstructed as *-ntu. Versions of the word Bantu (that is, the root plus the class 2 noun class prefix *ba-) occur in all Bantu languages: for example, as watu in Swahili; bantu in Kikongo; anthu in Chichewa; batu in Lingala; bato in Kiluba; bato in Duala; abanto in Gusii; andũ in Kamba and Kikuyu; abantu in Kirundi, Kinyarwanda, Zulu, Xhosa, Runyakitara,[9] and Ganda; wandru in Shingazidja; abantru in Mpondo and Ndebele; bãtfu in Phuthi; bantfu in Swati; banu in Lala; vanhu in Shona and Tsonga; batho in Sesotho, Tswana and Northern Sotho; antu in Meru; andu in Embu; vandu in some Luhya dialects; vhathu in Venda; and bhandu in Nyakyusa.

text: History[edit]

text: Origins and expansion[edit]

text: Current scholarly understanding places the ancestral proto-Bantu homeland in West Africa near the present-day southwestern border of Nigeria and Cameroon c. 4,000 years ago (2000 B.C.), and regards the Bantu languages as a branch of the Niger–Congo language family.[13] This view represents a resolution of debates in the 1960s over competing theories advanced by Joseph Greenberg and Malcolm Guthrie, in favor of refinements of Greenberg's theory. Based on wide comparisons including non-Bantu languages, Greenberg argued that Proto-Bantu, the hypothetical ancestor of the Bantu languages, had strong ancestral affinities with a group of languages spoken in Southeastern Nigeria. He proposed that Bantu languages had spread east and south from there, to secondary centers of further dispersion, over hundreds of years.

text: Using a different comparative method focused more exclusively on relationships among Bantu languages, Guthrie argued for a single Central African dispersal point spreading at a roughly equal rate in all directions. Subsequent research on loanwords for adaptations in agriculture and animal husbandry and on the wider Niger–Congo language family rendered that thesis untenable. In the 1990s, Jan Vansina proposed a modification of Greenberg's ideas, in which dispersions from secondary and tertiary centers resembled Guthrie's central node idea, but from a number of regional centers rather than just one, creating linguistic clusters.[14]

text: It is unclear exactly when the spread of Bantu-speakers began from their core area as hypothesized c. 4,000 years ago (2000 B.C.). By 3,500 years ago (1500 B.C.) in the west, Bantu-speaking communities had reached the great Central African rain forest, and by 2,500 years ago (500 B.C.) pioneering groups had emerged into the savannahs to the south, in what are now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, and Zambia. Another stream of migration, moving east, by 3,000 years ago (1000 B.C.) was creating a major new population center near the Great Lakes of East Africa, where a rich environment supported a dense population. Movements by small groups to the southeast from the Great Lakes region were more rapid, with initial settlements widely dispersed near the coast and near rivers, due to comparatively harsh farming conditions in areas farther from water. Pioneering groups had reached modern KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa by 300 A.D. along the coast, and the modern Northern Province (encompassed within the former province of the Transvaal) by 500 A.D.[15]

text: Before the expansion of farming and herding peoples, including those speaking Bantu languages, Africa south of the equator was populated by neolithic hunting and foraging peoples. Some of them were ancestral to proto-Khoisan-speaking peoples, whose modern hunter-forager and linguistic descendants, the Khoekhoe and San, occupy the arid regions around the Kalahari desert. The Hadza and Sandawe populations in Tanzania comprise the other modern hunter-forager remnant in Africa of these proto-Khoisan-speaking peoples.

text: Over a period of many centuries, most hunting-foraging peoples were displaced and absorbed by incoming Bantu-speaking communities, as well as by Ubangian, Nilotic, and Sudanic language-speakers in North Central and Eastern Africa. The Bantu expansion was a long series of physical migrations, a diffusion of language and knowledge out into and in from neighboring populations, and a creation of new societal groups involving inter-marriage among communities and small groups moving to communities and small groups moving to new areas.

text: After their movements from their original homeland in West Africa, Bantus also encountered in East Africa peoples of Afro-Asiatic (mainly Cushitic) and Nilo-Saharan (mainly Nilotic and Sudanic) ancestral origin. As cattle terminology in use amongst the few modern Bantu pastoralist groups suggests, the Bantu migrants would acquire cattle from their new Cushitic neighbors. Linguistic evidence also indicates that Bantus likely borrowed the custom of milking cattle directly from Cushitic peoples in the area.[16] Later interactions between Bantu and Cushitic peoples resulted in Bantu groups with significant Cushitic ethnic admixture, such as the Tutsi of the African Great Lakes region; and culturo-linguistic influences, such as the Herero herdsmen of southern Africa.[17][18]

text: On the coastal section of East Africa, another mixed Bantu community developed through contact with Muslim Arab and Persian traders. The Swahili culture that emerged from these exchanges evinces many Arab and Islamic influences not seen in traditional Bantu culture, as do the many Afro-Arab members of the Bantu Swahili people. With its original speech community centered on the coastal parts of Zanzibar, Kenya, and Tanzania – a seaboard referred to as the Swahili Coast – the Bantu Swahili language contains many Arabic loan-words as a result of these interactions.[19]

text: Between the 14th and 15th centuries, Bantu-speaking states began to emerge in the Great Lakes region in the savannah south of the Central African rain forest. On the Zambezi river, the Monomatapa kings built the famous Great Zimbabwe complex, a civilisation of what are today referred to as the Shona people. From the 16th century onward, the processes of state formation amongst Bantu peoples increased in frequency. This was probably due to denser population (which led to more specialized divisions of labor, including military power, while making emigration more difficult); to increased interaction amongst Bantu-speaking communities with Chinese, European, Indonesian, and Arab traders on the coasts; to technological developments in economic activity; and to new techniques in the political-spiritual ritualization of royalty as the source of national strength and health.[20]

text:
Kongo youth and adults in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo

A Kikuyu woman in Kenya

A Makua mother and child in Mozambique

Bubi girls in Equatorial Guinea

text: Kingdoms[edit]

text: Between the 14th and 15th centuries, Bantu states began to emerge in the Great Lakes region in the savanna south of the Central African rain-forest. In Southern Africa on the Zambezi river, the Monomatapa kings built the famous Great Zimbabwe complex, the largest of over 200 such sites in Southern Africa, such as Bumbusi in Zimbabwe and Manyikeni in Mozambique. From the 16th century onward, the processes of state formation among Bantu peoples increased in frequency. Some examples of such Bantu states include: in Central Africa, the Kingdom of Kongo,[21] Lunda Empire,[22] and Luba Empire[23] of Angola, the Republic of Congo, and the Democratic Republic of Congo; in the Great Lakes Region, the Buganda[24] and Karagwe[24] Kingdoms of Uganda and Tanzania; and in Southern Africa, the Mutapa Empire,[25] Rozwi Empire,[26] and the Danamombe, Khami, and Naletale Kingdoms of Zimbabwe and Mozambique.[25]

text: Toward the 18th and 19th centuries, the flow of Zanj (Bantu) slaves from Southeast Africa increased with the rise of the Omani Sultanate of Zanzibar, based in Zanzibar, Tanzania. With the arrival of European colonialists, the Zanzibar Sultanate came into direct trade conflict and competition with Portuguese and other Europeans along the Swahili Coast, leading eventually to the fall of the Sultanate and the end of slave trading on the Swahili Coast in the mid-20th century.


document_title: List of Ministers of the Federal Capital Territory (Nigeria)

question_text: the minister of the federal capital territory of nigeria is

text:
This is a list of ministers of the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria.
The Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria was formed in 1976 from parts of former Nasarawa, Niger, and Kogi States.

text:
Name

Title

Took Office

Left Office

Party

Notes

Mobolaji Ajose-Adeogun

Minister

1976

1979

John Jatau Kadiya

Minister

1979

1982

NPN

Iro Abubakar Dan Musa

Minister

1982

1983

NPN

Haliru Dantoro

Minister

1983

1984

-

Mamman Jiya Vatsa

Minister

1984

December 1985

-

Hamza Abdullahi

Minister

1986

1989

-

Gado Nasko

Minister

1989

1993

-

Jeremiah Timbut Useni

Minister

1993

1998

-

Mamman Kontagora

Minister

1998

1999

-

Ibrahim Bunu

Minister

1999

2001

PDP

Mohammed Abba Gana

Minister

8 February 2001

17 July 2003

PDP

Nasir Ahmad el-Rufai

Minister

17 July 2003

27 July 2007

PDP

Aliyu Modibbo Umar

Minister

27 July 2007

29 October 2008

PDP

Muhammadu Adamu Aliero

Minister

17 December 2008

8 April 2010

PDP

Bala Mohammed

Minister

8 April 2010

To 29th May 2015

PDP

Mohammed Bello

Minister

11 November 2015

APC

tag: table


document_title: RADIUS

question_text: what authentication scheme is being used with radius

text: RADIUS

text: Protocol components[edit]

text: RADIUS is an AAA protocol that manages network access. AAA stands for authentication, authorization and accounting. RADIUS uses two packet types to manage the full AAA process; Access-Request, which manages authentication and authorization; and Accounting-Request, which manages accounting. Authentication and authorization are defined in RFC 2865 while accounting is described by RFC 2866.

text: Authentication and authorization[edit]

text: The user or machine sends a request to a Network Access Server (NAS) to gain access to a particular network resource using access credentials. The credentials are passed to the NAS device via the link-layer protocol—for example, Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) in the case of many dialup or DSL providers or posted in an HTTPS secure web form.

text: In turn, the NAS sends a RADIUS Access Request message to the RADIUS server, requesting authorization to grant access via the RADIUS protocol.[5]

text: This request includes access credentials, typically in the form of username and password or security certificate provided by the user. Additionally, the request may contain other information which the NAS knows about the user, such as its network address or phone number, and information regarding the user's physical point of attachment to the NAS.

text: The RADIUS server checks that the information is correct using authentication schemes such as PAP, CHAP or EAP. The user's proof of identification is verified, along with, optionally, other information related to the request, such as the user's network address or phone number, account status, and specific network service access privileges. Historically, RADIUS servers checked the user's information against a locally stored flat file database. Modern RADIUS servers can do this, or can refer to external sources—commonly SQL, Kerberos, LDAP, or Active Directory servers—to verify the user's credentials.

text: The RADIUS server then returns one of three responses to the NAS: 1) Access Reject, 2) Access Challenge, or 3) Access Accept.

text: Each of these three RADIUS responses may include a Reply-Message attribute which may give a reason for the rejection, the prompt for the challenge, or a welcome message for the accept. The text in the attribute can be passed on to the user in a return web page.

text: Authorization attributes are conveyed to the NAS stipulating terms of access to be granted. For example, the following authorization attributes may be included in an Access-Accept:

text:
The specific IP address to be assigned to the user
The address pool from which the user's IP should be chosen
The maximum length of time that the user may remain connected
An access list, priority queue or other restrictions on a user's access
L2TP parameters
VLAN parameters
Quality of Service (QoS) parameters

text: When a client is configured to use RADIUS, any user of the client presents authentication information to the client. This might be with a customizable login prompt, where the user is expected to enter their username and password. Alternatively, the user might use a link framing protocol such as the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP), which has authentication packets which carry this information.

text: Once the client has obtained such information, it may choose to authenticate using RADIUS. To do so, the client creates an "Access- Request" containing such Attributes as the user's name, the user's password, the ID of the client and the Port ID which the user is accessing. When a password is present, it is hidden using a method based on the RSA Message Digest Algorithm MD5.

text: Accounting[edit]

text: Accounting is described in RFC 2866.

text: When network access is granted to the user by the NAS, an Accounting Start (a RADIUS Accounting Request packet containing an Acct-Status-Type attribute with the value "start") is sent by the NAS to the RADIUS server to signal the start of the user's network access. "Start" records typically contain the user's identification, network address, point of attachment and a unique session identifier.[6]

text: Periodically, Interim Update records (a RADIUS Accounting Request packet containing an Acct-Status-Type attribute with the value "interim-update") may be sent by the NAS to the RADIUS server, to update it on the status of an active session. "Interim" records typically convey the current session duration and information on current data usage.

text: Finally, when the user's network access is closed, the NAS issues a final Accounting Stop record (a RADIUS Accounting Request packet containing an Acct-Status-Type attribute with the value "stop") to the RADIUS server, providing information on the final usage in terms of time, packets transferred, data transferred, reason for disconnect and other information related to the user's network access.

text: Typically, the client sends Accounting-Request packets until it receives an Accounting-Response acknowledgement, using some retry interval.

text: The primary purpose of this data is that the user can be billed accordingly; the data is also commonly used for statistical purposes and for general network monitoring.

text: Roaming[edit]

text: RADIUS is commonly used to facilitate roaming between ISPs, for example:

text:
by companies which provide a single global set of credentials that are usable on many public networks;
by independent, but collaborating, institutions issuing their own credentials to their own users, that allow a visitor from one to another to be authenticated by their home institution, such as in eduroam.

text: RADIUS facilitates this by the use of realms, which identify where the RADIUS server should forward the AAA requests for processing.

text: Realms[edit]

text: A realm is commonly appended to a user's user name and delimited with an '@' sign, resembling an email address domain name. This is known as postfix notation for the realm. Another common usage is prefix notation, which involves prepending the realm to the username and using '\' as a delimiter. Modern RADIUS servers allow any character to be used as a realm delimiter, although in practice '@' and '\' are usually used.

text: Realms can also be compounded using both prefix and postfix notation, to allow for complicated roaming scenarios; for example, somedomain.com\username@anotherdomain.com could be a valid username with two realms.

text: Although realms often resemble domains, it is important to note that realms are in fact arbitrary text and need not contain real domain names. Realm formats are standardized in RFC 4282, which defines a Network Access Identifier (NAI) in the form of 'user@realm'. In that specification, the 'realm' portion is required to be a domain name. However, this practice is not always followed. RFC 7542 [7] replaced RFC 4282 in May 2015.

text: Proxy operations[edit]

text: When a RADIUS server receives an AAA request for a user name containing a realm, the server will reference a table of configured realms. If the realm is known, the server will then proxy the request to the configured home server for that domain. The behavior of the proxying server regarding the removal of the realm from the request ("stripping") is configuration-dependent on most servers. In addition, the proxying server can be configured to add, remove or rewrite AAA requests when they are proxied over time again.

text: Proxy Chaining is possible in RADIUS and authentication/authorization and accounting packets are usually routed between a NAS Device and a Home server through a series of proxies. Some of advantages of using Proxy chains include scalability improvements, policy implementations and capability adjustments. But in roaming scenarios, the NAS, Proxies and Home Server could be typically managed by different administrative entities. Hence, the trust factor among the proxies gains more significance under such Inter-domain applications. Further, the absence of end to end security in RADIUS adds to the criticality of trust among the Proxies involved. Proxy Chains are explained in RFC 2607.

text: Security[edit]

text: Roaming with RADIUS exposes the users to various security and privacy concerns. More generally, some roaming partners establish a secure tunnel between the RADIUS servers to ensure that users' credentials cannot be intercepted while being proxied across the internet. This is a concern as the MD5 hash built into RADIUS is considered insecure.[8]

text: Packet structure[edit]

text: The RADIUS packet data format is shown to the right. The fields are transmitted from left to right, starting with the code, the identifier, the length, the authenticator and the attributes.

text: RADIUS Codes (decimal) are assigned as follows:

text:
Code
Assignment

1
Access-Request

2
Access-Accept

3
Access-Reject

4
Accounting-Request

5
Accounting-Response

11
Access-Challenge

12
Status-Server (experimental)

13
Status-Client (experimental)

40
Disconnect-Request

41
Disconnect-ACK

42
Disconnect-NAK

43
CoA-Request

44
CoA-ACK

45
CoA-NAK

255
Reserved

text: The Identifier field aids in matching requests and replies.

text: The Length field indicates the length of the entire RADIUS packet including the Code, Identifier, Length, Authenticator and optional Attribute fields.

text: The Authenticator is used to authenticate the reply from the RADIUS server, and is used in encrypting passwords; its length is 16 bytes.

text: Attribute value pairs[edit]

text: The RADIUS Attribute Value Pairs (AVP) carry data in both the request and the response for the authentication, authorization, and accounting transactions. The length of the radius packet is used to determine the end of the AVPs.

text:
[show]AVP type
Assignment

1
User-Name

2
User-Password

3
CHAP-Password

4
NAS-IP-Address

5
NAS-Port

6
Service-Type

7
Framed-Protocol

8
Framed-IP-Address

9
Framed-IP-Netmask

10
Framed-Routing

11
Filter-Id

12
Framed-MTU

13
Framed-Compression

14
Login-IP-Host

15
Login-Service

16
Login-TCP-Port

18
Reply-Message

19
Callback-Number

20
Callback-Id

22
Framed-Route

23
Framed-IPX-Network

24
State

25
Class

26
Vendor-Specific

27
Session-Timeout

28
Idle-Timeout

29
Termination-Action

30
Called-Station-Id

31
Calling-Station-Id

32
NAS-Identifier

33
Proxy-State

34
Login-LAT-Service

35
Login-LAT-Node

36
Login-LAT-Group

37
Framed-AppleTalk-Link

38
Framed-AppleTalk-Network

39
Framed-AppleTalk-Zone

40
Acct-Status-Type

41
Acct-Delay-Time

42
Acct-Input-Octets

43
Acct-Output-Octets

44
Acct-Session-Id

45
Acct-Authentic

46
Acct-Session-Time

47
Acct-Input-Packets

48
Acct-Output-Packets

49
Acct-Terminate-Cause

50
Acct-Multi-Session-Id

51
Acct-Link-Count

52
Acct-Input-Gigawords

53
Acct-Output-Gigawords

55
Event-Timestamp

56
Egress-VLANID

57
Ingress-Filters

58
Egress-VLAN-Name

59
User-Priority-Table

60
CHAP-Challenge

61
NAS-Port-Type

62
Port-Limit

63
Login-LAT-Port

64
Tunnel-Type

65
Tunnel-Medium-Type

66
Tunnel-Client-Endpoint

67
Tunnel-Server-Endpoint

68
Acct-Tunnel-Connection

69
Tunnel-Password

70
ARAP-Password

71
ARAP-Features

72
ARAP-Zone-Access

73
ARAP-Security

74
ARAP-Security-Data

75
Password-Retry

76
Prompt

77
Connect-Info

78
Configuration-Token

79
EAP-Message

80
Message-Authenticator

81
Tunnel-Private-Group-ID

82
Tunnel-Assignment-ID

83
Tunnel-Preference

84
ARAP-Challenge-Response

85
Acct-Interim-Interval

86
Acct-Tunnel-Packets-Lost

87
NAS-Port-Id

88
Framed-Pool

89
CUI

90
Tunnel-Client-Auth-ID

91
Tunnel-Server-Auth-ID

92
NAS-Filter-Rule

94
Originating-Line-Info

95
NAS-IPv6-Address

96
Framed-Interface-Id

97
Framed-IPv6-Prefix

98
Login-IPv6-Host

99
Framed-IPv6-Route

100
Framed-IPv6-Pool

101
Error-Cause Attribute

102
EAP-Key-Name

103
Digest-Response

104
Digest-Realm

105
Digest-Nonce

106
Digest-Response-Auth

107
Digest-Nextnonce

108
Digest-Method

109
Digest-URI

110
Digest-Qop

111
Digest-Algorithm

112
Digest-Entity-Body-Hash

113
Digest-CNonce

114
Digest-Nonce-Count

115
Digest-Username

116
Digest-Opaque

117
Digest-Auth-Param

118
Digest-AKA-Auts

119
Digest-Domain

120
Digest-Stale

121
Digest-HA1

122
SIP-AOR

123
Delegated-IPv6-Prefix

124
MIP6-Feature-Vector

125
MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix

126
Operator-Name

127
Location-Information

128
Location-Data

129
Basic-Location-Policy-Rules

130
Extended-Location-Policy-Rules

131
Location-Capable

132
Requested-Location-Info

133
Framed-Management-Protocol

134
Management-Transport-Protection

135
Management-Policy-Id

136
Management-Privilege-Level

137
PKM-SS-Cert

138
PKM-CA-Cert

139
PKM-Config-Settings

140
PKM-Cryptosuite-List

141
PKM-SAID

142
PKM-SA-Descriptor

143
PKM-Auth-Key

144
DS-Lite-Tunnel-Name

145
Mobile-Node-Identifier

146
Service-Selection

147
PMIP6-Home-LMA-IPv6-Address

148
PMIP6-Visited-LMA-IPv6-Address

149
PMIP6-Home-LMA-IPv4-Address

150
PMIP6-Visited-LMA-IPv4-Address

151
PMIP6-Home-HN-Prefix

152
PMIP6-Visited-HN-Prefix

153
PMIP6-Home-Interface-ID

154
PMIP6-Visited-Interface-ID

155
PMIP6-Home-IPv4-HoA

156
PMIP6-Visited-IPv4-HoA

157
PMIP6-Home-DHCP4-Server-Address

158
PMIP6-Visited-DHCP4-Server-Address

159
PMIP6-Home-DHCP6-Server-Address

160
PMIP6-Visited-DHCP6-Server-Address

161
PMIP6-Home-IPv4-Gateway

162
PMIP6-Visited-IPv4-Gateway

163
EAP-Lower-Layer

164
GSS-Acceptor-Service-Name

165
GSS-Acceptor-Host-Name

166
GSS-Acceptor-Service-Specifics

167
GSS-Acceptor-Realm-Name

168
Framed-IPv6-Address

169
DNS-Server-IPv6-Address

170
Route-IPv6-Information

171
Delegated-IPv6-Prefix-Pool

172
Stateful-IPv6-Address-Pool

173
IPv6-6rd-Configuration

174
Allowed-Called-Station-Id

175
EAP-Peer-Id

176
EAP-Server-Id

177
Mobility-Domain-Id

178
Preauth-Timeout

179
Network-Id-Name

180
EAPoL-Announcement

181
WLAN-HESSID

182
WLAN-Venue-Info

183
WLAN-Venue-Language

184
WLAN-Venue-Name

185
WLAN-Reason-Code

186
WLAN-Pairwise-Cipher

187
WLAN-Group-Cipher

188
WLAN-AKM-Suite

189
WLAN-Group-Mgmt-Cipher

190
WLAN-RF-Band

text: Vendor-specific attributes[edit]

text: RADIUS is extensible; many vendors of RADIUS hardware and software implement their own variants using Vendor-Specific Attributes (VSAs). Microsoft has published some of their VSAs.[9] VSA definitions from many other companies remain proprietary and/or ad-hoc, nonetheless many VSA dictionaries can be found by downloading the source code of open source RADIUS implementations, for example FreeRADIUS or openRADIUS.

text: Security[edit]

text: The RADIUS protocol transmits obfuscated passwords using a shared secret and the MD5 hashing algorithm. As this particular implementation provides only weak protection of the user's credentials,[10] additional protection, such as IPsec tunnels or physically secured data-center networks, should be used to further protect the RADIUS traffic between the NAS device and the RADIUS server. Additionally, the user's security credentials are the only part protected by RADIUS itself, yet other user-specific attributes such as tunnel-group IDs or vlan memberships passed over RADIUS may be considered sensitive (helpful to an attacker) or private (sufficient to identify the individual client) information as well.[citation needed] The RadSec protocol claims to solve aforementioned security issues.

text: History[edit]

text: RADIUS was originally specified in an RFI by Merit Network in 1991 to control dial-in access to NSFnet. Livingston Enterprises responded to the RFI with a description of a RADIUS server. Merit Network awarded the contract to Livingston Enterprises that delivered their PortMaster series of Network Access Servers and the initial RADIUS server to Merit. RADIUS was later (1997) published as RFC 2058 and RFC 2059 (current versions are RFC 2865 and RFC 2866).[1]

text: Now, several commercial and open-source RADIUS servers exist. Features can vary, but most can look up the users in text files, LDAP servers, various databases, etc. Accounting records can be written to text files, various databases, forwarded to external servers, etc. SNMP is often used for remote monitoring and keep-alive checking of a RADIUS server. RADIUS proxy servers are used for centralized administration and can rewrite RADIUS packets on the fly (for security reasons, or to convert between vendor dialects).

text: The Diameter protocol was intended as the replacement for RADIUS. While both are Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) protocols, the use-cases for the two protocols have since diverged. Diameter is largely used in the 3G space. RADIUS is used elsewhere. One of the largest barriers to having Diameter replace RADIUS is that switches and Access Points typically implement RADIUS, but not Diameter.

text: Diameter uses SCTP or TCP while RADIUS typically uses UDP as the transport layer. As of 2012, RADIUS can also use TCP as the transport layer with TLS for security.

text: Standards documentation[edit]

text: The RADIUS protocol is currently defined in the following IETF RFC documents.

text:
RFC
Title
Date published
Related article
Related RFCs
Notes

RFC 2058
Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
January 1997
RADIUS
Obsoleted by RFC 2138

RFC 2059
RADIUS Accounting
January 1997
RADIUS
Obsoleted by RFC 2139

RFC 2138
Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
April 1997
RADIUS
Obsoleted by RFC 2865

RFC 2139
RADIUS Accounting
April 1997
RADIUS
Obsoleted by RFC 2866

RFC 2548
Microsoft Vendor-specific RADIUS Attributes
March 1999
RADIUS

RFC 2607
Proxy Chaining and Policy Implementation in Roaming
June 1999

RFC 2618
RADIUS Authentication Client MIB

Management information base
Obsoleted by RFC 4668

RFC 2619
RADIUS Authentication Server MIB

Management information base
Obsoleted by RFC 4669

RFC 2620
RADIUS Accounting Client MIB
June 1999
Management information base
Obsoleted by RFC 4670

RFC 2621
RADIUS Accounting Server MIB
June 1999
Management information base
Obsoleted by RFC 4671

RFC 2809
Implementation of L2TP Compulsory Tunneling via RADIUS
April 2000

RFC 2865
Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
June 2000
RADIUS
Updated by RFC 2868, RFC 3575, RFC 5080
This standard describes RADIUS authentication and authorization between a Network Access Server (NAS) and a shared RADIUS authentication server. This protocol is also used to carry configuration information from the RADIUS server to the NAS.

RFC 2866
RADIUS Accounting
June 2000
RADIUS

This standard describes how accounting information is carried from the NAS to a shared RADIUS accounting server.

RFC 2867
RADIUS Accounting Modifications for Tunnel Protocol Support
June 2000
RADIUS
Updates RFC 2866

RFC 2868
RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol Support
June 2000

Updates RFC 2865

RFC 2869
RADIUS Extensions
June 2000

Updated by RFC 3579, RFC 5080

RFC 2882
Network Access Servers Requirements: Extended RADIUS Practices
July 2000

RFC 3162
RADIUS and IPv6
August 2001

RFC 3575
IANA Considerations for RADIUS
July 2003

RFC 3576
Dynamic Authorization Extensions to RADIUS
July 2003

Obsoleted by RFC 5176

RFC 3579
RADIUS Support for EAP
September 2003
Extensible Authentication Protocol
Updates RFC 2869

RFC 3580
IEEE 802.1X RADIUS Usage Guidelines
September 2003
802.1X

RFC 4014
RADIUS Attributes Suboption for the DHCP Relay Agent Information Option
February 2005

RFC 4372
Chargeable User Identity
January 2006

RFC 4590
RADIUS Extension for Digest Authentication
July 2006

Obsoleted by RFC 5090

RFC 4668
RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6
August 2006
Management information base

RFC 4669
RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6
August 2006
Management information base

RFC 4670
RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6
August 2006
Management information base

RFC 4671
RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6
August 2006
Management information base

RFC 4675
RADIUS Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support
September 2006

RFC 4679
DSL Forum Vendor-Specific RADIUS Attributes
September 2006

RFC 4818
RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute
April 2007

RFC 4849
RADIUS Filter Rule Attribute
April 2007

RFC 5080
Common RADIUS Implementation Issues and Suggested Fixes
December 2007

Updates RFC 3579

RFC 5090
RADIUS Extension for Digest Authentication
February 2008

RFC 5176
Dynamic Authorization Extensions to RADIUS
January 2008

RFC 5607
RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management
July 2009

RFC 5997
Use of Status-Server Packets in the RADIUS Protocol
August 2010

Updates RFC 2866

RFC 6158
RADIUS Design Guidelines
March 2011

RFC 6218
Cisco Vendor-Specific RADIUS Attributes for the Delivery of Keying Material
April 2011

RFC 6421
Crypto-Agility Requirements for Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS)
November 2011

RFC 6613
RADIUS over TCP
May 2012

Experimental

RFC 6614
Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS
May 2012

Experimental

RFC 6929
Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol Extensions
April 2013

Updates RFC 2865, RFC 3575, RFC 6158


document_title: Andi Mack

question_text: when does the new andy mac come on

question_tokens: when does the new andy mac come on

text: Andi Mack

text: Plot[edit]

text: Andi Mack is turning 13 when her older sister Bex returns home. Andi works through her teenage life, with the help of her family and her friends Cyrus and Buffy, including coping with the revelation that Bex is actually her mother and that her mother Celia is actually her grandmother, and managing her crush on classmate Jonah Beck.

text: Cast[edit]

text: Main[edit]

text:
Peyton Elizabeth Lee as Andi Mack[1]
Joshua Rush as Cyrus Goodman[1]
Sofia Wylie as Buffy Driscoll[1]
Asher Angel as Jonah Beck[1]
Lilan Bowden as Rebecca "Bex" Mack[1]
Lauren Tom as Celia Mack[1]

text: Recurring[edit]

text:
Stoney Westmoreland as Henry "Ham" Mack[1]
Emily Skinner as Amber
Garren Stitt as Marty
Trent Garrett as Bowie

text: Production[edit]

text: Development of the series began in 2015 when Disney Channels Worldwide president Gary Marsh convinced Terri Minsky to consider developing another series for Disney Channel. Back in 2001, Minsky had created the popular sitcom Lizzie McGuire, but was initially reluctant to create another teen-oriented series. She eventually found inspiration for the series in an article on how Jack Nicholson had learned as an adult that the woman he thought was his sister was actually his mother.[2] The series started filming in Salt Lake City in September 2016[3] and finished filming in December 2016.[4]

text: The series premiered on Disney Channel on April 7, 2017.[5] The first episode became available on the Disney Channel App, On-Demand, Disney Channel's YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, and Google Play on March 10, 2017, while the second episode became available the same day via Disney Channel On-Demand as well as to subscribers using the Disney Channel App.[5] The first season was planned to consist of 13 episodes;[6] however, only 12 episodes were aired.

text: Disney Channel renewed the series for a second season on May 25, 2017.[7] The second season premiered on Disney Channel on October 27, 2017. One week before the season two premiere, a music video for the full version of the series' theme song was released, starring the entire cast.[8] On October 25, 2017, TVLine revealed that in season two, Cyrus will begin to realize that he has feelings for Jonah, making him Disney Channel's first gay main character.[9]

text: Episodes[edit]

text:
Season
Episodes
Originally aired

First aired
Last aired

1
12
April 7, 2017 (2017-04-07)
June 23, 2017 (2017-06-23)

2
TBA
October 27, 2017 (2017-10-27)
TBA

text: Ratings[edit]

text:
Season
Episodes
First aired
Last aired
Avg. viewers
(millions)

Date
Viewers
(millions)
Date
Viewers
(millions)

1
12
April 7, 2017 (2017-04-07)
1.24[10]
June 23, 2017 (2017-06-23)
1.94[11]
1.39

2
4
October 27, 2017 (2017-10-27)
1.62[12]
TBA
TBD
1.57