Hippocrates stated that all disease begins in the gut, an exaggeration but he had a point. Inversely recovery can begin there too depending on the presence of 'good' bacteria. Homeopaths and other types of natural healers have known all along but it is only now that main stream 'scientists' are 'discovering' this.
Why do all so called experts claim that around 2045, give or take 5 years, mankind will somehow turn into a different kind of species. I have mentioned this before: http://dotsmathcoffee.com/?p=2473
Would you accept such a fate?
Just to remind ourselves: The US east coast blizzard prediction maps are NOT video footage!...for the simple reason there are most likely no weather satellites to record that in spite of we are TOLD and led to BELIEVE. The imagery that you see as weather forecast is a translation (from numbers to pixels) or modeling of data that comes from WITHIN our atmosphere. I am talking about thermometers, barometers, radar and weather balloons which combined supply sufficient data in order to produce a so called satellite view and thus render ASSUMED video footage from a real orbital 'weather' satellite obsolete.
NASA openly admits to this and it is easy to grasp once you know what to look for. Observe the recent Tweet by NASA and notice the used language in particular:
— NASA (@NASA) January 22, 2016
The text right below the Tweet provided by NASA but not shown in picture above:
NASA's GEOS-5 provides a satellite view of historic winter stormThe near-real-time GEOS-5 ATMOSPHERIC DATA assimilation system ingests more than 5 million observations every 6 hours producing comprehensive analyses & forecasts of the atmosphere each day.
First and foremost: the GEOS-5 assimilates ATMOSPHERIC DATA and so NASA tells you that what they show you comes from WITHIN our atmosphere..NOT from some supposed satellite!!!
Furthermore: Global MODELING and assimilation office; Supercomputations by NASA's supercomputers had to be made in order to PROVIDE an image because it wasn't an image from the start like in the case of an actual photo or video. It's a composite, a model, an illustration, an assimilation of data indeed....so why need a satellite then?..Go figure!
NASA's GEOS-5 provides a 'satellite view', as in: as if it were filmed by a satellite.
Learn to read between the lines, to dissect text like a lawyer, to read the fine print even when it isn't provided because words do have meaning.
Ushering in Planet X by re-branding it Planet 9. Notice how the pictures provided in both articles are nothing more than artistic renderings which is typical for space agency 'photos'. On top of that are the titles of articles linked below a clue that it is not certain at all that this Planet 9 would be real.
The first title is: 'Ninth Planet' MAY exist in solar system: US scientists. May?! Define may:
modal verb: may
1.expressing possibility."that may be true"
How about DOES exist if it is so certain.
The second title is Scientists: GOOD evidence for 9th planet in solar system. Define good:
adjective: good; comparative adjective: better; superlative adjective: best
1.to be desired or approved of."it's good that he's back to his old self"
Does the alleged existence of Planet 9 has your approval? In 'science' one would expect a term like irrefutable or absolute, don't you think?
Since when is there water to be found in vacuum space? The answer is: never.
The so called space walks are filmed in a huge swimming pool with a mock up space station and the right color for chroma key compositing (blue or green screen).
In the article this is shown in a short video (almost at the end) and it is deliberately shown to you so your free will is not violated. You can choose to either lie to your self OR to discern the information provided to come to the simple and truthful conclusion that we were and are fooled and mocked big time with the whole so called 'space program'.
If you justly and humbly admit the latter then follow up by wondering and researching the WHO and WHY of it.
The article features the following paragraph:
"Radiation released by nuclear bombs is obviously harmful. Known as ionizing radiation, it is powerful enough to remove electrons from atoms. By contrast, radio-frequency energy is a form of non-ionizing radiation given off by cellular and portable phones, Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors and countless other devices."
So now I am suppose to believe that all non-ionizing radiation is harmless. Poor thinking. How about ultraviolet, infrared or microwaves? The latter, by the way, is emitted and received by your mobile phone and widely used to heat up food. Go sit in the Australian summer sun without protection and report back to me how THAT works for you. Or a well known classic: put your pet in a microwave oven and observe how the non-ionizing radiation 'transforms' him.
Just do some research how the level microwaves from your mobile gets approved, you'll be stunned and realize something fishy is going on and don't forget to look into the work of Barry Trower, you can find him on Youtube.
I mean: Why do you think that 4G network is forbidden in Bruxelles, the EU capital? Why do you think the Scientific Council in The Netherlands sued the Health Council regarding mobile device radiation levels? Why do you think a UMTS antenna mechanic is only allowed to work less than 5 hours in proximity of such an antenna? Why do you think dutch Prof. Michiel Haas wrote a book called 'Electrostress & Health'? Why did Italy's Supreme Court rule that there is a causal link between mobile phone use and cancer? Why are there multiple publications which conclude that living closer than 450 meters from a UMTS antenna increases the chance of cancer with a factor 3.5? etc etc.
Remember that BEFORE 1920 it was known that asbestos is a carcinogen but it took well over 70 years before it was forbidden by law to use that material for construction in The Netherlands, not sure about other countries on earth, but the denial and/or deliberate cover-up about the hazards of that material has certainly caused a lot of unnecessary suffering.
One more excerpt from the above NY Times article: “Scientific opinion is split on the issue — many different studies have reached different conclusions based on the same evidence,”
Ask yourself how an opinion is even scientific. Define opinion:
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
1.a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Get it? Scientific opinion is a contradictio in terminis for true science is factual and based on knowledge.
Anyway, I am not afraid of a phone call or WiFi here and there but I do promote awareness about the instruments we use on a daily basis and the possible risks thereof. The latter are of course obfuscated by the parties who want to make a buck out of greed and that bothers me more than sitting in a WiFi area for a while. What bothers me even more is the guileless, docile and even indulgent attitude of the masses/consumers towards the sellers and 'authorities'; their lack of awareness and care, not to mention knowledge.
Don't fall for it, I mean religiously believing that technology is the answer to our own created problems in spite of it sounding sensible and attractive. The so called progression via technology is an illusory one and it will lead to transhumanism.
The world lacks love and care,...NOT 'better' technology.
The Nikon P900 featrues a pretty powerful zoom considering that the moon is "384,400 km" away: