Most of what gets paraded around as "science" in our society is nothing more than corporate propaganda pretending to be science. This is where all the "fake science" lies come from that tell us glyphosate is harmless, GMOs don't cause cancer, fluoride is wonderful to ingest and mercury in vaccines is safe to inject into children.
But as I've interacted with university laboratories, science paper authors and scientific "thinkers" across the realm of science, I've come to realize something truly astonishing: Most status quo scientists are clueless about reality. What they think they know is mostly pseudoknowledge that's been pushed onto them by medical schools or industry propaganda (Big Biotech, Big Pharma, Big Ag, the cancer industry, etc.). They absolutely do not want anyone waking people up to legitimate, independent science that might question the false narratives of the status quo. (My own efforts to educate the public about real science are so successful that the biotech industry maintains a full-time "negative P.R." firm whose entire mission is to discredit me personally by spreading obviously fictional accusations. That's how desperate they are to silence independent scientists who are educating the public.)
But don't take my word for what I've said above. You need to see for yourself how incredibly ignorant many status quo scientists really are.
95% of status quo scientists FAIL this simple science quiz
To demonstrate the astonishing ignorance of status quo scientists and doctors, I've created a science quiz, found below, that 95% of status quo scientists FAIL for the simple reason that they are dogmatists more than they are legitimate scientists.
For example, nearly all scientists ridiculously believe that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. This has been taught to every scientist with such repetitive insistence that nearly all scientists now take the concept as a matter of faith. (Note the word "faith," not "fact.") Even scientists reading this will initially think I'm wrong and that they are right, because the false idea that "the speed of light is a constant" has been hammered into their brains from the very first day of academic science training.
Yet it turns out that the speed of light isn't a constant at all. Not even in a vacuum. And to make sure nobody uncovers the truth about the variance in the speed of light, the NIST literally defines the speed of light using circular logic which references the speed of light itself as a factor in determining the speed of light (see the full mathematical explanation below). As a result, when NIST says the speed of light is a constant, it is the mathematical equivalent of saying X = X, which of course is always true, no matter what the value of X. Yet, in the real universe, the speed of light isn't a constant as you'll see below. (Right there, nearly 95% of status quo scientists fail the quiz.)
Any scientist who says the speed of light is always a constant in a vacuum is scientifically ignorant and has been living under a massive cover-up perpetrated by the status quo scientific community (read below for more details) which pretends that c is a constant. But that's nothing more than fake science.
Check out the quiz for yourself. If you know any science friends or colleagues, give them this quiz and see if they get even a single answer correct. I've given this quiz to many scientists, and not a single person has answered every science question correctly. Most scientists fail every question here. Every single one.
What does that tell you about the sad state of the "scientific" establishment in society today? It tells you that much of what its members believe is pseudoscience.
The SCIENCE QUIZ that 95% of status quo scientists FAIL
Here's the five-question quiz. Answers are below.
#1) TRUE or FALSE: In a vacuum, the speed of light is a constant.
#2) TRUE or FALSE: In mammals, the lungs produce enormous quantities of blood platelets.
#3) TRUE or FALSE: At over 400 ppm, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are now the highest they've ever been on our planet.
#4) TRUE or FALSE: Mercury is extremely toxic in the environment but totally safe when injected into children via vaccines.
#5) TRUE OR FALSE: Type-2 diabetes can be reversed and cured.
Answers are given below, with detailed scientific citations, charts and additional links for exploration. Most of the links you'll find here are links to science publications recognized by mainstream science such as Science Daily and Science Alert.
Also, watch my new documentary here which explains how independent, grassroots scientists (like myself) are now taking back "science" from the corrupt, corporate poisoners who have infested the scientific status quo with twisted falsehoods and deliberate disinformation to suppress human knowledge:
ANSWERS to the science quiz that 95% of status quo scientists FAIL
#1) TRUE or FALSE: In a vacuum, the speed of light is a constant.
Correct answer: FALSE
The speed is not a constant. Even in a vacuum, it varies in two important ways.
First, the speed of light varies based on the structure of the light. As explained in an article on ScienceNews.org -- a well-known publication of mainstream science -- entitled Speed of light not so constant after all, "Researchers led by optical physicist Miles Padgett at the University of Glasgow demonstrated the effect by racing photons that were identical except for their structure. The structured light consistently arrived a tad late."
The article, which cites the peer-reviewed science paper at this link, goes on to state:
“It’s very impressive work,” says Robert Boyd, an optical physicist at the University of Rochester in New York. “It’s the sort of thing that’s so obvious, you wonder why you didn’t think of it first.”
They call it "obvious" now, you see, yet nearly the entire status quo scientific community still believes in the falsehood that the speed of light is a constant.
The very definition of the speed of light is a circular logic science hoax
Even the ScienceNews.org article openly admits the definition of c (the speed of light) is a science hoax, saying, " While measuring c was once considered an important experimental problem, it is now simply specified to be 299,792,458 meters per second, as the meter itself is defined in terms of light’s vacuum speed."
Hold the presses! Do you grasp what Science Alert just admitted? They're saying that the very definition of the speed of light is a hoax because it's defined in terms of the time it takes light to propagate across one meter of space. Yet the meter is, itself, defined as how far light travels in a certain amount of time, which is itself derived from the speed of light.
Thus, the speed of light is quite literally defined as a circular logic science hoax... the equivalent of a dictionary's entry for the word "tadpole" saying literally, "See tadpole."
In essence, the scientific community has engaged in a massive conspiracy to conceal variations in the speed of light by defining the speed of light as a self-referenced term, in total violation of scientific rationality and honesty. Because of this arbitrary definition of the speed of light, any variations in the actual speed of light will be hidden from all scientists, by definition.
Pioneering science thinker Rupert Sheldrake explains the obfuscation in more detail in his must-read book, Science Set Free which challenges many assumptions of the dishonest scientific establishment and points to a possible cyclical variation in the speed of light:
Not surprisingly, early measurements of the speed of light varied considerably, but by 1927, the measured values had converged to 299,796 kilometers per second. At the time, the leading authority on the subject concluded, “The present value of c is entirely satisfactory and can be considered more or less permanently established.” However, all around the world from about 1928 to 1945, the speed of light dropped by about 20 kilometers per second. The “best” values found by leading investigators were in impressively close agreement with each other. Some scientists suggested that the data pointed to cyclic variations in the velocity of light.
In the late 1940s the speed of light went up again by about 20 kilometers per second and a new consensus developed around the higher value. In 1972, the embarrassing possibility of variations in c was eliminated when the speed of light was fixed by definition. In addition, in 1983 the unit of distance, the meter, was redefined in terms of light. Therefore if any further changes in the speed of light happen, we will be blind to them because the length of the meter will change with the speed of light. (The meter is now defined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.) The second is also defined in terms of light: it is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of vibration of the light given off by cesium 133 atoms in a particular state of excitation (technically defined as the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state).
#2) TRUE or FALSE: In mammals, the lungs produce enormous quantities of blood platelets (yes, the LUNGS)
Correct answer: TRUE
Nearly all status quo scientists fail this question because they've been taught that blood is solely produce in bone marrow, while the lungs are solely engaged in respiration, they believe.
It turns out that's wildly false, even according to mainstream science publications such as Nature. It turns out that in mice, the lungs produce more blood platelets than bone marrow -- an idea that nearly all present-day doctors and scientists will immediately condemn as "fake news" until they are properly educated about biological reality.
Here's an article in ScienceAlert.com -- a well-respected mainstream science publication -- that spells it out, entitled An Unexpected New Lung Function Has Been Found - They Make Blood:
In experiments involving mice, the team found that they produce more than 10 million platelets (tiny blood cells) per hour, equating to the majority of platelets in the animals' circulation. This goes against the decades-long assumption that bone marrow produces all of our blood components.
Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco also discovered a previously unknown pool of blood stem cells that makes this happen inside the lung tissue - cells that were incorrectly assumed to mainly reside in bone marrow.
Gee, do you mean to tell me that doctors and scientists didn't already know everything? Do you mean to tell me that after hundreds of years of medical science, somehow nobody noticed that more blood cells are manufactured in the lungs than in bone marrow?
Say it ain't so... that doctors don't know everything and might still have something to learn about anatomy, physiology and biology!
Just in case you don't believe Science Alert, Science Daily also covers the story at this link:
Using video microscopy in the living mouse lung, UC San Francisco scientists have revealed that the lungs play a previously unrecognized role in blood production. As reported online March 22, 2017 in Nature, the researchers found that the lungs produced more than half of the platelets -- blood components required for the clotting that stanches bleeding -- in the mouse circulation. In another surprise finding, the scientists also identified a previously unknown pool of blood stem cells capable of restoring blood production when the stem cells of the bone marrow, previously thought to be the principal site of blood production, are depleted.
#3) TRUE or FALSE: At over 400 ppm, carbon dioxide levels are now the highest they've ever been on our planet
Correct answer: FALSE
This question trips up the younger "scientists" -- if you can even call them that -- nearly all of whom have been wildly indoctrinated by the climate change science hoax into thinking that 400 ppm of CO2 is a global emergency that will spell doom for humankind.
The entire climate change narrative is just pseudoscience being pushed onto gullible scientists who believe anything if it's stated to them by an apparent "authority." Most status quo scientists, it turns out, are obedient conformists who have long lost any real ability to think for themselves. So they go along with the most absurdly false ideas like believing that CO is a "pollutant" when, in reality, it's the molecule of life for food-producing plants, rain forests and even greenhouse plant production. Plants across the planet are, in reality, starving for CO2. Without CO2, we would all die and the global food web would immediately collapse.
The following charts show you something that most climate change proponents have simply never seen: The true history of CO2 level variation and global temperature variation throughout Earth's known history.
This first chart reveals how atmospheric CO2 was at nearly 7000 ppm in the Cambrian period, over 4000 ppb during the Devonian period, over 2500 ppm during the Jurassic period and has plummeted to nearly its lowest point in Earth's history today, at around 400 ppm.
At the same time, Earth's average global temperature has gone through several cycles, varying roughly from 12 C to 22 C, and it currently stands at nearly its lowest average point in Earth's history. (You can find dozens of different charts depicting the same data, by the way. This isn't some secret archive of temperature and CO2 data.)
Yet when climate change alarmists show us charts that claim to show a catastrophic rise in CO2 levels, they zoom in to the scale of just a few centuries, wildly exaggerating a short-term rise to make it look like a catastrophic level of CO2 that's never been witnessed before. Look at this chart, for example, from GSU.edu:
Source: GSU.edu
Notice anything fishy about the chart? While the age of planet Earth is billions of years, this chart only shows you 260 years of CO2 data. It also cuts off the entire Y axis of the chart below 270 ppm. That's sheer intellectual dishonesty, because anyone can take any snippet of Earth's temperature data and zoom in to create whatever visual effect they want. Using all the same data, I could show you a chart depicting a catastrophic global cooling emergency that looks just as visually convincing. It all comes down to which part of the data set you're zooming in on.
When climate charts are artificially zoomed in to show you just the window of time they want you to see -- without the greater context of the history of CO2 -- that's not science. It's pseudoscience, which is exactly what "climate change" is based on.
Now, to demonstrate the kind of truly delusional thinking currently exercised by climate change "scientists" -- if you can even call them that -- I'm including a mind-blowing chart by John Englander, a "sea level rise risk" expert consultant.
This chart, which also shows the history of CO2 levels throughout hundreds of millions of years of Earth's history, disagrees slightly from the chart shown above, but it also shows the same general trend of very high CO2 in Earth's past -- 5000 ppm over 500 million years ago -- plummeting to the lowest point on the chart, which is the 400 ppm of CO2 we have in the atmosphere today.
Now, in an amazing leap of delusional pseudoscience, Englander draws a completely arbitrary vertical burst of rising CO2 from the present point, accompanied by a provocative question, "Near Future Extinction?"
The intellectual dishonesty demonstrated here is not merely astonishing, but widely shared across the delusional "climate change" pseudoscience community, which has more in common with the Flat Earth Society than legitimate science. Englander's painful attempt at making a point is that CO2 peaks have been temporally associated with mass extinction events, yet he points to quite literally the LOWEST point on the entire chart -- the present CO2 level of 400 ppm -- and magically cites that point as somehow being a "peak" that might lead to mass extinction. The total absence of logic and reason in this magical "extinction leap" is just staggering, yet it's also quite indicative of the delusional thinking that's commonplace among climate change pseudoscientists:
Source: http://www.johnenglander.net
But wait, there's more!
Even if you focus the timeline to more recent millennia, it turns out that global temperature variation has experienced a roller coaster ride of peaks and valleys long before the combustion engine ever came along.
This temperature variation chart, created by climatologist Cliff Harris and meteorologist Randy Mann, shows temperature variations from roughly 2500 B.C. to present day. In this chart, you can see that the average global temperature was far warmer in 1100 B.C. than it is today. It also shows that the 1600s saw a very cold period -- a "Little Ice Age" -- which was temporally correlated with 90 large volcanic eruptions.
The conclusion from the chart is that "whenever solar radiation has DECREASED and volcanic activity has INCREASED, global temperatures suddenly plummet..."
When you're looking at average global temperatures, by the way, it helps to have a wider view of Earth's temperature history, so here's a chart showing the Greenland Ice Core temperature data over the last 10,000 years:
Source: JoanneNova.com.au
As you can see from this "big picture" point of view, Greenland's present average temperature is on the low side of this 10,000-year trend, which saw far higher temperatures just 3300 years ago. But dishonest climate change scare mongers zoom into this chart to show just the short-term rise on the lower right-hand corner of this chart. If you zoom in enough, you can make it look like Earth is undergoing a temperature apocalypse. But in reality, we're actually still on the low side of the temperature scale.
Now, according to the pseudoscience of the climate change cultists, rising CO2 causes rising average global temperatures. This is an assumed matter of faith across the entire climate change narrative, it turns out. Because when you actually look at Earth's history in terms of CO2 levels vs. temperature, there is virtually no meaningful causation correlation:
The conclusion from all this? First off, at just barely over 400 ppm, the current CO2 level in Earth's atmosphere is, without question, close to the lowest it's ever been in the history of the planet. There is no debate on this point, as even the climatologists have to admit that CO2 levels have been wildly higher in the past. Yet most "scientists" today ridiculously believe that CO2 has risen to alarming, historically high levels that are about to doom the planet. You hear this in the climate doom and gloom in the New York Times, Washington Post and other pseudoscience propaganda publishers.
Nearly everything that modern-day "scientists" are taught about climate change is factually false and lacking the full context of historical data which encompass CO2 and temperature trends throughout Earth's history. The fact that both CO2 and average global temperatures were both much, much higher millions of years before modern civilization even existed is obvious proof that CO2 and temperature are driven by far more powerful forces than humankind alone. This is irrefutable unless someone abandons logic entirely.
#4) TRUE or FALSE: Mercury is extremely toxic in the environment but totally safe when injected into children via vaccines.
Correct answer: FALSE.
Again, nearly all status quo scientists fail this answer because they've been ridiculously told that methylmercury -- usually the kind found in the environment -- is extremely toxic, while ethylmercury -- the form used in vaccines -- is somehow inert and completely safe.
In truth, all forms of mercury are toxic to human biology, including organic, inorganic, elemental and mercury compounds. To believe that certain forms of mercury are harmless when injected into the human body is to exercise a kind of mercury denialism that, again, smacks of Flat Earth Syndrome.
If you know anything about mercury -- and I know quite a lot about detecting mercury via ICP-MS instrumentation in the lab -- you know that its electron orbital structure makes it extremely reactive to certain biological molecules. Although considered a "heavy metal," its unique atomic structure and chemical properties allow it to easily replace or even displace nutritional elements in the body (such as zinc) while permeating tissues and crossing the blood-brain barrier where mercury damages neurological tissue.
One of the key CDC "researchers" who conducted so-called "scientific" research to prove that Thimerosal (the mercury preservative) is safe in vaccines is an international fugitive from justice named Poul Thorsen, who worked as part of the "vaccine deep state" that's steeped in quack science and financial fraud. Working closely with the CDC and Emory University, Thorsen fabricated science studies, then eventually fled the country with millions of dollars in government research money. He remains at large to this day, and his studies are still widely cited by pro-vaccine mercury zealots who claim this international criminal can be trusted when it comes to his mercury science.
See the full web of CDC vaccine fraud in this PDF infographic from Natural News.
As further evidence of the mercury vaccine fraud that's endemic to the scientific status quo, a science paper published in BioMed Research International found that over 165 scientific studies have found Thimerosal (mercury) to be harmful to human biology.
That same study also found "evidence of malfeasance" (i.e. science fraud) in the studies that claimed Thimerosal was safe to inject into children.
Robert F. Kennedy's World Mercury Project "Thimerosal Myths Debunked" page gives a more detailed history of mercury in vaccines, including the little-known fact that mercury was NOT removed from all vaccines in the United States as it falsely claimed by so-called "doctors" who seem to know nothing about what's really in vaccines. (Vaccines also contain human fetal cell lines and even African Green Monkey kidney cells, as is openly admitted by the CDC itself.)
In my ISO-accredited laboratory, which is audited every year for international accreditation, I have personally tested flu shots and found them to contain over 50,000 ppb of mercury, which is consistent with the known dose of 25 mcg of mercury administered at 0.5 mL per dose.
The EPA's limit of mercury in public drinking water is 2 ppb, meaning that flu shots are injecting children (and pregnant women) with 25,000 times higher mercury concentrations than the legal limit of mercury in water set by the EPA. Even mercury in tuna fish -- which has environmentalists extremely alarmed -- is typically just 250 ppb.
#5) TRUE OR FALSE: Type-2 diabetes can be reversed and cured
Correct answer: TRUE
For decades, holistic health pioneers such as Dr. Gabriel Cousens have been reversing type-2 diabetes through diet alone. (He promotes a vegan diet based on a lot of juicing.)
Natural News has helped teach hundreds of thousands of type-2 diabetes sufferers how to reverse diabetes over the last 15 years, with countless testimonials sent to us by former disease sufferers who are now 100% cured and no longer need any insulin or medication whatsoever.
I even reversed by own borderline diabetes over two decades ago through simple changes in food and exercise.
Yet, to this very day, most doctors and "scientists" -- if you can even call them that, again -- insist that type-2 diabetes can't be reversed and can only be "treated" with -- guess what? -- expensive patented medications that enrich the profits of Big Pharma.
Now, nearly two decades after pioneering holistic health doctors began teaching people how to reverse type-2 diabetes with a very high success rate, mainstream science now admits type-2 diabetes can be reversed.
Once again following in the footsteps of holistic nutrition pioneers like Natural News, Science Daily now covers the results of a peer-reviewed clinical trial originally published in The Endocrine Society.
Entitled, "Intensive medical treatment can reverse type 2 diabetes," the article reveals how "Intervention induced several months of remission in up to 40 percent of clinical trial participant."
Note carefully that, in accordance with the delusional myth of the medical status, Science Daily dares only describe the reversal of diabetes as a "remission" -- that's code for "any cure that medicine can't explain." But because type-2 diabetes is not an infection, a superbug, a parasite or a genetic mutation disorder, its entire definition rests on the identification of metabolic symptoms. When those symptoms are gone, the diagnosis is also gone. No symptoms means no diabetes, by definition, as the "disease" is simply a medical label assigned to an observable set of symptoms (such as cellular resistance to insulin, which can be readily reversed through exercise and nutrition).
So here we have another case where mainstream science is once again about 15 years behind the pioneering holistic health doctors who have been reversing type-2 diabetes for decades... often with a far higher success rate than the 40% cited in this science article. The reversals achieved through holistic health interventions are also permanent reversals of type-2 diabetes, not temporary "remissions."
I have personally witnessed type-2 diabetes being 100% reversed in just four days at the Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center in Arizona. Literally in just four days on the Dr. Cousens protocol, individuals who were told they were insulin dependent for life were able to get completely off all insulin forever. No medication needed ever again. This was all accomplished with nothing more than food, nutrition, meditation, simple walking exercise and strategic calorie restriction. Astonishingly, most doctors are still completely ignorant of all this, remaining nutritionally illiterate and hopelessly incompetent when it comes to helping patients overcome type-2 diabetes.
Why isn't this diabetes cure celebrated by the entire medical community? For all the obvious reasons, of course: Treating diabetes is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and all the corporations that profit from disease have no financial incentive to lose customers by teaching people how to cure their own disease without expensive chemical medications.
Vitamin C can also treat cancer stem cells
In addition to most scientists and doctors having no clue that type-2 diabetes can be reversed and cured using simple nutritional interventions, they also have no clue whatsoever that Vitamin C has been scientifically found to halt the growth of cancer stem cells, even working 1000% better than a common cancer drug.
Similar nutritional ignorance is found among doctors and scientists when it comes to the cancer reversal potential of vitamin D, or the anti-cancer effects of selenium, or even the ability of silica-rich mineral water to eliminate aluminum from the body and protect the brain from Alzheimer's and dementia.
The weaker the "science," the more aggressively people are attacked for questioning it
The primary assertion of today's arrogant "scientists" is rooted in absurdity: It is the assertion that science alone has a unique and divine monopoly over facts, truth and knowledge. Under the cover of that delusion, the label of "science" is deployed to demand immunity against all questioning or skepticism, asserting that anything backed by "science" is beyond reproach.
A few centuries ago, the same assertion was demanded by the Catholic Church, which insisted that its beliefs were unassailable and rooted in divine truth (a truth, by the way, which only the High Priests could access, must like the high priests of scientism today). Anyone who questioned the Church was slandered and labeled a heretic. Yet today, "science" has taken over the role of the Church, demanding the same faith-based obedience to its twisted dogma while simultaneously discrediting and destroying anyone who dare question a single assumption of the "Church of Science."
Just like the high priests of the Church, today's arrogant status quo scientists claim that only they can access, interpret or gauge scientific truth, insisting that non-scientists have no right to even engage in discussions of science (or questioning science, an even more dire sin). Their ridiculous claim that "science is self-correcting" ignores the simple truth that any self-correcting system must embrace critical questions that challenge the current dogma... and modern science honors no such process, instead insisting that its truth is absolute and therefore can never be questioned. (Just try asking a vaccine pusher why they think injecting children with mercury is somehow okay, and you'll get an earful of raving mad dogma in response.)
In effect, "Science" has become what the Church used to be: A self-reinforcing cabal of cultist dogmas parading around as absolute truth. That doesn't mean there isn't some truth to be found in science -- I use science myself in my environmental laboratory projects such as alerting to the world to high levels of lead in rice protein -- but the use of the "science" label as a weapon to stifle dissent, silence skeptics and demand absolute obedience to conformist dogma is, at its core, no different from the intellectual tyranny of the once-dominant Catholic Church which absurdly claimed a monopoly on truth.
As this science quiz easily shows, even those who consider themselves to be informed adherents to science are often shockingly ignorant of reality. Their ideas on physics, medicine, chemistry and even cosmology can only be considered rudimentary at best -- or even desperately conformist and therefore contradictory to the very tenants of legitimate science. The gaps in human knowledge over the recognized sciences are far larger than the areas filled in with conclusive knowledge. The total sum of human knowledge possessed today by the sciences is inconsequential compared to that which has yet to be learned, and in many ways, modern "scientists" are behaving in self-deluded patterns of thought that can be more accurately described as "scientific mysticism," where mystical truths are "believed" as a matter of faith, then labeled "science" in an attempt to lend them credibility.
When modern scientists insist they already know everything there is to know about a given topic -- we hear this in the "science is settled" fallacy -- you know it isn't really science at all.
The Health Ranger threatens the entire scientific establishment with a grassroots, people-based scientific REVOLUTION
As final proof of the dogma behind the scientific status quo today, bear in mind that I alone am routinely named the "most anti-science person on the internet" (by the negative P.R. firms hired by biotech companies to discredit grassroots scientists) and yet I engage in way-beyond-PhD-level science on a daily basis, developing new methods for mass spec analyses of food, dietary supplements and environmental samples for heavy metals, nutritive elements, pesticides, phytochemicals and more. My laboratory is internationally accredited far beyond the accreditation of most university labs, and I have singlehandedly analyzed and published a paper on the heavy metals analysis of over 600 municipal water samples from across the United States. Read my science paper in the Natural Science Journal at this link, which describes the ICP-MS analysis of these water samples.
I also pioneered a breakthrough LC/MS-TOF method for the quantitative analysis of cannabinoids with about about 1,000 times greater precision than the UV-DAD method currently used across the cannabis industry. You can read my CBD analysis method description at this link from CWC Labs, my privately owned independent laboratory.
By the way, just today I achieved a breakthrough in liquid handling automation systems which transforms about two months of calibration work into a 60-second test to almost instantly derive the liquid coefficient for extremely precise remote arm pippetting (with accuracy typically within +/- one microliter). I've recorded a podcast on that breakthrough and will be sharing that soon. It might even be turned into another published science paper to teach other scientists across the country how to more efficiently run liquid handling automation robot systems.
Stay informed on all my science innovations, published science papers, science breakthroughs and censored science documentaries at Natural News.
Recommended reading: Get the book Science Set Free by Rupert Sheldrake. It will forever wake you up to the truth about the fictions parading around as status quo "science" in our corporate-controlled world.
Also, check out my video trailer for my upcoming science documentary called Biosludged:
https://vimeo.com/202413146
Mike Adams (aka the "Health Ranger") is the founding editor of NaturalNews.com, a best selling author (#1 best selling science book on Amazon.com called "Food Forensics"), an environmental scientist, a patent holder for a cesium radioactive isotope elimination invention, a multiple award winner for outstanding journalism, a science news publisher and influential commentator on topics ranging from science and medicine to culture and politics.
Mike Adams also serves as the lab science director of an internationally accredited (ISO 17025) analytical laboratory known as CWC Labs. There, he was awarded a Certificate of Excellence for achieving extremely high accuracy in the analysis of toxic elements in unknown water samples using ICP-MS instrumentation.
In his laboratory research, Adams has made numerous food safety breakthroughs such as revealing rice protein products imported from Asia to be contaminated with toxic heavy metals like lead, cadmium and tungsten. Adams was the first food science researcher to document high levels of tungsten in superfoods. He also discovered over 11 ppm lead in imported mangosteen powder, and led an industry-wide voluntary agreement to limit heavy metals in rice protein products.
Adams has also helped defend the rights of home gardeners and protect the medical freedom rights of parents. Adams is widely recognized to have made a remarkable global impact on issues like GMOs, vaccines, nutrition therapies, human consciousness.
Please contact us for more information.
