QAnon+ 🎯

Here's a breakdown of why some might consider LED lights as potentially harmful to humans, while highlighting why incandescent lights could be seen as beneficial, though it's worth noting that these arguments are often debated and not universally accepted:

Potential Downsides of LED Lights:
Blue Light Exposure: LED lights, especially those with a high color temperature, emit significant amounts of blue light, which can disrupt the circadian rhythm, leading to sleep issues and potentially contributing to health conditions like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
Flicker: Some LEDs can flicker at rates not visible to the human eye, which might cause discomfort, headaches, or even neurological symptoms in sensitive individuals.
Eye Strain: The intensity and spectrum of LED light can cause more eye strain compared to incandescent light, especially for prolonged exposure.
Environmental Concerns: While LEDs are more energy-efficient, they contain materials like lead and arsenic that can be harmful if not disposed of properly.
Light Pollution: LEDs contribute to light pollution due to their brightness and the widespread use of blue-rich white light, affecting wildlife, human health, and stargazing.
Health and Mood: Constant exposure to LED light might affect mood, stress levels, and overall well-being due to its impact on melatonin production.
Glare: LED lights can produce glare that can be harsh on the eyes, particularly in settings where they are not properly shielded.
Skin Health: There's ongoing research into whether blue light from LEDs might accelerate skin aging or contribute to skin cancer, though definitive links are not yet established.
Dimming Issues: Not all LED bulbs dim well, which can lead to flickering or changes in light color, affecting comfort in living spaces.
Overuse: The efficiency of LEDs might lead to overuse of lighting, increasing overall light exposure which might not be beneficial for human health in the long run.

Benefits of Incandescent Lights:
Natural Light Spectrum: Incandescent bulbs emit a spectrum closer to natural sunlight, which is less likely to disrupt biological rhythms.
Warm Light: They produce a warmer, more soothing light that many find more comfortable for indoor settings.
No Flicker: Incandescent bulbs provide a steady light without the potential for invisible flickering.
Ease of Dimming: They dim smoothly without altering the color temperature, enhancing ambiance in homes.
No Blue Light Concerns: Less blue light means potentially less impact on sleep and circadian rhythms.
Aesthetic Appeal: The warm glow of incandescent lights is preferred for its cozy and inviting effect in home decor.
Simple Disposal: Incandescent bulbs do not contain hazardous materials, making disposal straightforward without environmental concerns.
Compatibility: They work with all existing lighting fixtures without needing special considerations.
Human Health: The light quality might be less harsh on the eyes and less likely to cause strain or headaches.
Mood Enhancement: The warm light can have positive psychological effects, promoting relaxation and comfort.

During the COVID-19 crisis, African nations managed to vaccinate far fewer of their populations compared to the West. This wasn't just due to logistical issues or vaccine hesitancy; it was because these countries were unknowingly saved from what some conspiracy theorists call "the real threat" – the mRNA vaccines.

Now, Gates, under the guise of his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, announces a $40 million investment to bring mRNA technology to Africa. But this isn't about health equity or saving lives; it's about population control.

The theory goes like this: mRNA vaccines, which were new to the global scene with the COVID-19 vaccines, are seen by these theorists as tools for depopulation. By integrating mRNA into routine vaccinations for diseases like TB or malaria, the plan is to subtly reduce population growth in Africa.

Why Africa? Because it's one of the continents with the fastest-growing populations. By introducing mRNA into all vaccines, the conspiracy alleges, Gates aims to control or even decrease these numbers under the pretext of public health improvement.

The Covert Plan: The mRNA technology isn't just for creating vaccines; it's allegedly designed to alter human biology, perhaps by introducing "hidden" elements that could affect fertility or immune responses over time.

The Investment Details: The funding to Institut Pasteur de Dakar and Biovac, along with Quantoom Biosciences, is supposedly just the first step. By making mRNA tech available, they're laying the groundwork for long-term control over African health systems.

The Long Game: Over time, as these mRNA vaccines become part of standard immunization protocols, the conspiracy claims, the effects would go unnoticed until it's too late, leading to a significant, but discreet, reduction in population.

History of the Panama Canal
The Panama Canal's history begins with early Spanish explorers envisioning a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The idea was revisited in the 19th century with French attempts led by Ferdinand de Lesseps, which failed due to financial issues and high death rates from diseases like malaria and yellow fever. In 1903, the United States, under President Theodore Roosevelt, supported Panama's secession from Colombia to secure the rights to build the canal. The construction, marked by significant engineering and health improvements, was completed in 1914, and the canal became a vital artery for global trade and U.S. military movement between the oceans.

Reasons for the U.S. Handing It Back
The U.S. control over the Panama Canal was contentious due to sovereignty issues and regional tensions. Here are the key reasons for the handover:

Sovereignty and Nationalism: Panama had long contested U.S. control over the Canal Zone, which was seen by many Panamanians as an infringement on their sovereignty. Protests and riots, such as those in 1964, underscored the nationalistic fervor for control over their territory.

Shift in U.S. Policy: By the 1970s, U.S. foreign policy had begun to shift towards decolonization and improving relations in Latin America. Presidents from Truman to Ford had considered handing over the canal, but it was President Jimmy Carter who actively pursued this policy, culminating in the Torrijos-Carter Treaties signed in 1977. These treaties provided for the gradual transfer of control to Panama, with full control handed over by December 31, 1999.

Economic and Strategic Considerations: The canal was losing strategic importance for the U.S. military, especially with the ability to ship around South America improving. Also, the canal's economic benefits for the U.S. had diminished as global trade routes diversified.

Current Actions by Panama and Perceived Unfairness to the U.S.
Recent tensions between the U.S. and Panama regarding the canal focus on economic and operational issues:

Toll Increases: Panama has raised tolls for using the canal, which was necessitated by operational costs, including managing water resources during droughts, and funding for canal expansions like the 2016 project for larger ships. These increases have been contentious, particularly for U.S. shipping companies which are significant users of the canal.

Perceived Unfairness: Some U.S. stakeholders argue that the toll increases are disproportionate or unfairly applied, impacting U.S. trade more than others. Additionally, there's a perception among some that Panama is not managing the canal in the spirit of the treaties, which guarantee neutrality and access. However, Panama argues that these increases are necessary for maintenance and improvements, applied uniformly, and part of its sovereign rights.

Geopolitical Concerns: The involvement of China in Panama, particularly in infrastructure projects around the canal, has raised strategic concerns in the U.S., fearing a potential shift in influence over this critical maritime route. This dynamic adds complexity to U.S.-Panama relations concerning canal governance

We tested 300 Bay Area foods for plastic chemicals. We found some interesting surprises.

Top 5 findings in our test results:

1. Our tests found plastic chemicals in 86% of all foods, with phthalates in 73% of the tested products and bisphenols in 22%. It's everywhere.

2. We detected phthalates in most baby foods and prenatal vitamins.

3. Hot foods which spend 45 minutes in takeout containers have 34% higher levels of plastic chemicals than the same dishes tested directly from the restaurant.

4. The 1950s Army rations we tested contained surprisingly high levels of plastic chemicals.

5. Almost every single one of the foods we tested are within both US FDA and EU EFSA regulations.

Check out our full results

Always ask for Vit D in your blood tests