Woodswizard

ok actually insane paper published yesterday a research group in Korea built a gene switch you can control wirelessly using electromagnetic fields they exposed mice to 60 hz EMF (same frequency as your wall outlet) using a pair of large coils that generate a uniform magnetic field around the animal, for cyclic 3-day on / 4-day off pulses they showed this could: - activate OSK to do epigenetic reprogramming in progeroid and aged mice, extending lifespan and reversing aging markers across multiple tissues - conditionally switch on mutant amyloid genes only in aged mouse brains, letting them separate aging effects from amyloid effects to study AD biology in a way previous models couldn't no drugs, no impacts, just a magnetic field from outside the body

So Jack Kruse is talking about certain places that are safer during the collapse of the magnetic field, and some of his sources are billionaires who are preparing doomsday bunkers. Now compare this to what the Area 51 caller in 1997 said on the Art Bell show: “The government knows about the safe places, but they choose not to tell the people.” (No, the Area 51 caller is not debunked just because a voice actor, probably hired by the CIA, said he was the original caller.) Now, I can tell you one place that was historically safe during one large disaster in the past, and it has scientists puzzled about the weird geomagnetic anomaly. I can also connect a few more patterns and tell you about a certain follow from a very powerful person on X after I posted about a certain location, a certain meeting, and a certain project. But let’s see the reaction before I spill the beans. You know what the Bible says: “Do not cast your pearls before swine.”

In 1959, Dr. Jane Wright tested 15 cancer patients. Instruction: spend as much time outdoors as possible, no glasses, avoid artificial light. By summer's end: 14 had shown no further tumor advancement. Several showed possible improvement. The 15th patient kept wearing regular glasses — blocking most UV from entering her eyes. The experiment was never repeated. Two objections were raised: no control patients were used, and experimental procedures should first be proven with animals. The animal study followed. Dr. Samuel Gabby, Senior Staff Member at Sherman Hospital, Illinois ran it using C3H mice — highly susceptible to spontaneous tumor development. Three groups: - 30 pairs under daylight white fluorescent tubes - 30 pairs under pink fluorescent tubes - 8 pairs under natural daylight filtered through window glass — the control. Control mice developed cancer two months later than those under daylight white fluorescent — and three months later than those under pink fluorescent. Pink fluorescent mice also had severely reduced litter sizes — one to two offspring instead of the normal six to fifteen. The full report was submitted to the Illinois Medical Journal. It was never published. It was presented to the Illinois branch of the American Cancer Society. It generated criticism of Dr. Gabby, nothing more. (John Ott — Health and Light, 1973)