Nisa Khan on why LED lighting is harmful to all life

This is why LED lights are so hard on your eyes It’s the overlapping 2D cones that create harmful super bursts of bright light that are completely unnatural and super directional like lasers and mazers.

Nisa Khan on why LED lighting is harmful to all life 🗓️ 2024-03-04 • 🕑 01:08:58 • 📁 3.2 GB Podcast: Jerm Warfare on Odysee Author: Jerm Warfare Web player: Episode: Nisa Khan is a scientist with a strong focus on lighting and, specifically, LED lighting and its dangers. – Full breakdown: – Join our tribe:

Fred on Scientism

We talk a great deal about scientism on

Here’s Fred’s take.

On the Unz Review I find a piece by Razib Khan, Can a Religious Person be a Good Scientist? His answer, yes, is inarguable since, as he points out, many good scientists are religious (Newton, a Christian, by most accounts did pretty fair work.) But why should it be necessary to ask such a luminously foolish question?

Because we live in luminously foolish times. Mr. Khan cites, not approvingly, a scientist who wanted to have another dismissed from his position for being an evangelical Christian. Why? Well, you see, the manner of thinking of religious people renders them incapable of science.

Science is a new (created) religion

The similarities are too obvious to see that science belief is one if the biggest controlled opposition operations ever.

The played this clip:

and got this (great) reaction:


 Science = Religion
 Cherry Pick email
I enjoyed your discussion in ep. 599 of the Neil Degrasse Tyson clip on
science and “climate deniers”. I just want to add an observation that I
think you and John may have missed (or didn’t have time to point out)–the
language that Tyson and his interviewer use is religious language.
Tyson says: “Science is not there for you to’s true whether
or not you believe in it. You can decide not to believe in it but that
doesn’t change the reality.” As a Christian, I recognize this as faith
language, particularly used in apologetics. I have heard and read arguments
and sermons just like this: “[The Bible] is not there for you to’s true whether or not you believe in it.”
I submit that science as a whole-with no distinction between fields of
study, some of which are more theoretical than not-is being positioned as a
religion, with scientists as modern-day prophets. As technology and science
become more complicated, so that, as the old quotation goes, they seem more
like magic, belief in science looks more like faith. You and I have not done
any experiments or studies, or seen any scientific results; we trust (or
don’t trust J ) what the researchers tell us-and not even that, what the
media tells us the researchers have found. We as a culture have come to
believe that the scientists, with their many educational degrees and arcane
jargon that only the privileged few understand, are the truth seekers and
truth tellers. This has to be frustrating to scientists who truly do want to
seek truth and who know how scientific inquiry should work-not by consensus
or by adhering to a belief system, but by being open to the possibility of
your theories being proved wrong by the next round of experiments. Today,
though, the media gives “science says” or “a scientific study has proved”
the same weight as “God says” or “The Bible/Koran/Torah says..” had for the
faithful in centuries past.
That means that you and John and all of us listeners, as science skeptics or
“deniers,” are the modern-day heretics. When does the stake burning begin?

Fred needs answers in evolution

Fascinating ramblings on a higher force behind nature’s wonders. Evolution and science just aren’t good enough when trying to explain how this complex earth and its systems work so well.

The intent of this essay is not to debate with the ardent of evolutionism, which is the Political Correctness of science. To do so would be pointless.