It is actually possible to reverse myopia, https://endmyopia.org/ provides many explanatory resources including a wiki https://wiki.endmyopia.org/ with much detailed background information.

It should come as no surprise: the historically high myopia rates are obviously an adaptive response to a change in our living/working environment. It should therefore be possible to understand and invert that change and achieve the reverse adaptive response.

My recent CMS search and selection exercise made me bypass the "big three" and opt for Concrete 5. It had the right mix of features, mind share, and in particular, ease of adding content. Adding content is simply done while browsing the site by dropping a page into edit mode, modifying it, and then publishing it. This is particularly helpful when multiple technically challenged people need to update the site.

So far I am quite happy with it, but it is not free from issues. There is a decent set of plugins and themes, the community is enthusiastic. Your requirements may differ: there are tons of other CMSes to choose from.

N-acetyl carnosine drops have been used with good success for a while. Bought them for my grandmother in law. Over the course of a couple of years it halted and mostly reversed her developing cataracts. Can get them from multiple sources.

Here is a link to a paper describing some of the early research.

Wind, water, lava flows.... Another on first consideration implausible one is electric discharge. But some pretty good points can be made about these matching the observations. I have never heard the proponents of that model provide a convincing and comprehensive explanation of what gets and keeps the discharge going, though.

This is not the first time that a protocol that restores energy metabolism, or protects it, has been found effective. And not just in early-onset Parkinson's. See for example the work of Birkmeyer who developed a protocol around NADH and Co-enyme Q10 (both co-enzymes active in glucose metabolism). Or the use of coconut oil (for the lauric acid contained therein) as a dietary addition to provide ketones as an alternative for glucose to energize cells: also found effective for many Alzheimers patients.

The ketogenic approach is easy to try as coconut oil is readily available. The Birkmeyer protocol requires a few supplements, in particular stablized NADH to be taken on an empty stomach.

Indeed, not a new discovery. Exploding thermite has been well documented in the past.

The lists of Nobel nominees are not publically available. Claiming someone has been nominated a certain number of times is clearly a falsehood.

Nonsense. Those who nominated a peer for a Nobel can and have given publicity to their actions, particularly when they felt him or her to have been unjustly denied the award.

In contrast to the sweeping unsubstantiated WP quote you offer, there is plenty of reliable evidence for the effectiveness of the Budwig protocol: it moved out of the research stage decades ago and has been used with success in practice since as evident from the many testimonials (here and elsewhere) of those who had their lives saved.

So how come this, or the effectiveness of several other alternative treatments, is not acknowledged? A good place to start are the words to two-time Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling: "Everyone should know that the 'war on cancer' is largely a fraud."

Too late. It has already been awarded in 1931 . Yes, the import of anearobic metabolism on cancer emergence has been known of for over 80 years. Indeed, Dr. Johanna Budwig has developed an effective dietary treatment based on it. She was nominated for a Nobel seven times, but never awarded one.

Large-scale geo-engineering operations are already being practiced as can be seen in this documentary.

Though obviously not ideal, the images do say something about intensity: you can calculate what the surface black body flux in the covered wavelength region should be. Since the images show the surface as relatively dark (since the surface BB emission should be fairly homogeneous and isotropic you can take the darkest pixel regions inside the disk as being an upper bound thereof), it is easy to see (under any kind of reasonable coloring-intensity-increases-with-photon-flux scale choice that may have been made) that in the covered wavelength region of the EUV and X-Ray spectrum, the emissions from the corona are a sizable multiple of the surface black body spectrum. And yes, the flux is not that high anymore in the X-ray region. The point is, tough, that it is extremely variable there, and highly variable over long (solar cycle) time periods in the not-that-narrow 26-34 nm band of the EUV.

In any case, considerable effects of this short wavelength flux on the earth's atmosphere have been observed. Unwelcome observations, so for political correctness some ludicrous CO2 spin had to be put on that too. Realize that about half of the radiative emissions of the thermosphere go towards the earth's surface and as such affect surface temperatures.

Look, solar irradiance averages about 1366 W/m^2 and a has a variation of about 1 W/m^2 (using a one-year moving average). That's 0.073%.

You are referring to the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). But it is not total: the satellites used to measure it have a spectral window from 2000 nm down to 200nm. That leaves out the EUV and X-Ray region. There, the variation is huge. See for example this factor-of-three variation over the solar cycle in the 26-34 nm band.

In the X-ray region variations can be orders of magnitude. Looking at any EUV of X-ray image, it is obvious that the short wavelength intensity from the corona much exceeds the black body radiation coming off the surface. So the conventional view that the EUV and X-Ray region is just an irrelevant tail of the black-body curve is wrong:the flux there is much more intense.

Then there are serious doubts about whether the TSI time series as published are actually all that constant. There have been per-instrument aging calibrations that have removed slopes in the raw data. The question though is whether this slope was really due to aging or due to a systematic trend in the solar irradiance. Also, the long-term TSI curve spans a number of instruments (satellites) with some gap in between. There is a lot of discussion about whether this gap has been bridged without skewing the data towards less variance than there really is.

There. A tiny bit more research shows that the sun can have a rather greater effect on Earth's temperature than it is given credit for.

And no, climate scientists are not familiar with this. The importance of the EUV and X-Ray region has been overlooked in the past and only recently has started to gain attention.

However, solar variation in radiation is not the cause (this is what is taken into account in climate models) but the magnetic fields and the solar wind appear to play a much larger role.

I would not be so sure about that since there is a bit of a blind spot in the theories, models and observations: EUV and X-Ray radiation. Take, for example, this time graph of the 26-34 nm EUV band. A factor of three or so variation in flux over the course of the solar cycle.

Look at any EUV or X-Ray image of the sun, and it is obvious that we are talking about radiation that much exceeds that what would be expected from the short wavelength tail of the solar black body curve (the surface, which is the source of that tail, appears relatively "dark" at those short wavelengths). Indeed, the spatial distribution of the source of the short wavelength emissions looks determined by magnetic field loops and surface bundles as can be seen in this three-color composite EIT synoptic image in 171 Å (blue), 195 Å (green), and 284 Å (red) . So yes, there is a correlation with magnetic fields and the solar wind, but it is likely still direct EUV and X-Ray radiation (absorbed in the very upper layer of the atmosphere) that affects the climate on earth.

These scare stories seem designed to keep people from consuming healthy foods such as raw milk. Another example: the many stories about mercury in fish. What you won't read about is that the selenium present in the same fish compensates for what little mercury is there.

Well, no, not my interpretation, theirs. Quoting:

"Today, astronomers unveiled the most complete 3-D map of the local universe (out to a distance of 380 million light-years) ever created."

A press release like that implies a spatial interpretation: "map", '3-D", "distance"...

You are trying to make a difference where there is none on two accounts. Firstly, taking redshift and using it as a spatial dimension for a map implies a distance interpretation or, if you wish, a uni-variate spatial interpretation of redshift. An this interpretation is obviously is wrong if, as the observational evidence indicates, there are objects with high redshift co-located with objects that have much lower redshift: the mapping is then projecting two co-located objects on different parts of the map yielding, by any commonsense definition, a wrong map.

Secondly, the redshift is proportional to distance dogma is so ingrained in astronomical teaching and literature that authors assume distance to be implied by a mere mention of a redshift measurement: the reader is supposed to know how to factor out the Hubble constant if units of distance are desired. As such, the use of redshift as a map coordinate can be assumed to have the intent to imply a spatial dimension unless explicitly mentioned otherwise.