Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

He points to a three-year field study testing whether a static neodymium magnetic disk placed beneath beehives could improve colony resilience and overwinter survival. The results were consistent across multiple seasons, not a single anomaly or one-off observation. The researchers deliberately avoided drawing conclusions from isolated data. They wanted...

31,442 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

.Jason Rantz on Seattle Red calmly points out what was missing from the coverage of DNI Tulsi Gabbard's Senate testimony and masterfully explains the Trump administration's rationale for after Iran... "We're in a world of fact. I think Andrew McCabe's characterization of her answer goes very far from what she actually said. The question of whether or not something is imminent to the point where you're going to order military strikes is separate, and is the decision -- the sole decision maker there is the President. It's based on the intelligence that they're getting. And Tulsi Gabbard's point was we present the probabilities of what is a potential threat, and the President gets to decide with counsel whether or not he believes that it qualifies as imminent. To the point of what imminent means, it's not the same as what we all use this term. It started with the Bush doctrine. It expanded greatly under Obama, and they're basically arguing three main points, I think, for what imminent threat actually can be in this role: whether or not you have a window of opportunity -- and they had, obviously, a window of opportunity in this case, most of the people in Iran are no longer alive, the ability to go after someone who is in fact, or an organization or regime is a potential threat. Do they have the capabilities to threaten us? And the argument from the beginning wasn't solely about tomorrow, they can have nuclear capabilities. It was whether or not they were going to have the ballistic missile coverage to ensure that they can, in fact, cover their nuclear capability."

Curtis Houck

16,657 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Dave Ramsey explains how manhood and masculinity became "toxic" and why it led to 7.2 million men sitting at home doing NOTHING every day…👀 “Men have been devalued and trivialized and been the villain or the clown of everything for a good 20 years. You don't see a TV commercial where the dad is the hero... he's an idiot. Or a sitcom where the dad is the hero... he's an idiot. The 12-year-old is the smart one, and they smart off through the whole script. And the dad's a doofus and the mother rolls her eyes at the doofus that she picked as a life partner. If you do that to any segment of the economy long enough, eventually they begin to believe it. And so we have 7.2 million men that are able-bodied, able-minded, that are not engaged in the workplace right now. They're doing nothing. They're sitting because the entire culture has said, 'You're a doofus, you're a buffoon, you're valueless. Manhood, masculinity is toxic by its very nature, and so you're of no value.' And the problem is it's destroying not only economics, but social fabric as well because we do know the data on kids, particularly daughters. The cues they take from their dad are devastatingly impactful, good or bad. And so an engaged dad who builds confidence and, gives their daughter hugs growing up, until she leaves home and even after she leaves home, builds a confident daughter. A daughter that is not sexually promiscuous. A daughter that finishes college. A daughter that will not be victimized in the marketplace. That comes from their dads. The data shows that. And so when the dad is not engaged, it's horrible for the social fabric.”

The Iced Coffee Hour

144,544 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

A stunning clinical observation has set a new course in the fight against cancer. Renowned cancer surgeon Dr. Kathleen Ruddy reveals a medical anomaly that challenges everything we know. After 30 years in oncology, having never witnessed a single case of spontaneous remission, Dr. Ruddy saw three patients experience dramatic responses that could only be attributed to one thing: the repurposed drug Ivermectin. The statistical likelihood of this happening by chance? "It's not zero, but it approaches zero." Faced with this incredible signal, the conventional path—a funded clinical trial—was a dead end. "What do you think the likelihood of that is? That's zero. That's flat-out zero." So, what's the next step? Dr. Ruddy found inspiration in one of medicine's most legendary studies: Framingham. Just as the Framingham Heart Study followed a population over decades without intervention, simply collecting data to make landmark discoveries, Dr. Ruddy is launching a groundbreaking initiative. This will be a Framingham-type observational study for cancer patients. The subjects? Patients who, exercising their right to choose, have already decided to use repurposed, FDA-approved drugs like Ivermectin under their physician's guidance. The central question is powerful in its simplicity: Do drugs like Ivermectin improve survival for cancer patients? This is a pivotal moment for data-driven medicine. It’s a direct response to real-world evidence and a refusal to ignore potential breakthroughs hiding in plain sight. If the signal is confirmed, it could revolutionize oncology. This isn't just observation; it's a mission to follow the data, wherever it leads.

Camus

135,440 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten