reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses the longevity and origins of lighting technology, presenting several notable claims about the history and the modern lighting industry. They begin by highlighting a Mazda bulb, noting that the “old Mazda bulbs would last one hundred and twenty years.” They claim that General Electric (GE) and other light bulb companies responded by reverse engineering this original design to create bulbs that would break down faster, enabling more frequent sales of replacement bulbs. The speaker asserts that the original incandescent Mazda bulb demonstrated exceptional longevity, and they reference the “centennial incandescent” as still burning for more than a hundred and twenty years, with a specific mention that this can be looked up in California. A broader point is then made about LEDs and the environmental argument often used to promote them. The speaker asserts that LEDs, which many people hear are superior for saving the Earth, already had a technology foundation prior to LEDs. They claim that the light bulbs capable of lasting a century existed before LEDs. The speaker then asserts that LEDs were created by IBM and Monsanto, with the implication that the design and production of LED lighting involve entities described as a computer company and a toxic pesticide company. From there, the speaker links this history to contemporary use: bringing an LED bulb into a home, positioned above the head, is framed as bringing in a bulb “designed by a computer company and a toxic pesticide company.” The consequence, as claimed, is that this choice will affect the body, with specific adverse outcomes listed as brain fog, fatigue, blindness, cataracts, and hair-related issues. The overall argument ties the adoption of LED lighting to concerns about health and corporate influence, suggesting that the modern LED bulbs carry risks tied to their corporate origins and design. In summary, the speaker presents a chain of assertions: Mazda’s long-lasting bulbs inspired industry changes aimed at shorter-lived replacements; the existence of a century-lasting incandescent example (the centennial incandescent) still operating in California; LEDs being developed by IBM and Monsanto; and the implication that using LEDs introduces health risks such as brain fog, fatigue, blindness, cataracts, and hair problems due to their alleged corporate provenance.

Speaker 0: You've heard me talk about the five g towers and how it's not for Internet at all. It's a microwave weapon developed by the military to be used on the citizens. Take a look at this video. Speaker 1: They started at 09:11 at night until 09:11 in the morning. You see the pulse going from the East to the West Coast. Alright. Boom. You see that? Those are NEXRAD stations. Each of those towers are 750 kilowatts, pumping out between 2.7 to 2.9 gigahertz in the microwave range. This is roughly the same frequency as your microwave oven. Speaker 0: Now there are tons and tons of whistleblowers coming out about this technology and how dangerous and damaging and deadly it is. This is not for Internet. You wanna know if it's true? Go right up to one of those damn towers and see how good your service is. It's still gonna suck. These things are not for Internet service or communications. It's a weapon. They are frying you with microwaves while you sleep. If you saw in the video, did you notice where it wasn't? Where they weren't microwaving the population while they slept? All the areas of the country that are the least populated. Is that by accident? Those microwaves just magically don't go to those certain areas of the country? No. There's no reason to do it there. There's very few people that live there compared to the populated areas of the country that have huge cities in them. That's where you notice they are microwaving you to death. Are you feeling sick? Are you feeling lethargic? You can't think straight. You're not sleeping well. You're having crazy dreams. All of this stuff is radiation poisoning. Look up the symptoms of radiation poisoning. You're gonna see they identically match a lot of your symptoms that you're having. Funny enough, it also matches a lot of the symptoms of COVID. Crazy how that works. So I'm telling you guys, you have got to understand what's happening. And they're talking about putting up four times the amount of towers in the next four years. Why would they need that? We can prove that it's not for Internet. It's not for cell phone service. So why? You need to start asking yourself, why are they putting these things up at an unprecedented rate and then lying to your face about what they're for? Reach out. Let's connect. Let's figure out the plan of how we stop this.

The video argues that removing LED bulbs from homes is important because LEDs contribute to health issues on a daily basis. It contrasts LEDs with traditional light sources, stating that the sun, fire, and incandescent bulbs emit infrared light, which “actually boost cellular energy and repair.” In contrast, LEDs are described as exposing people “only to blue light.” The speaker cites studies claiming that prolonged exposure to this blue light accelerates aging, disrupts neurotransmitters in the brain, and impairs mitochondria. These effects are presented as reasons why many people feel constantly tired and drained when indoors. Another point made is that LED bulbs flicker at high speeds that are “too fast for your eyes to notice, but enough to stress your brain and your nervous system.” This flicker is presented as an additional risk associated with LED lighting. To mitigate these issues, the speaker shares a personal precaution: wearing blue light blocking glasses “anytime I can’t control my environment and the lighting.” The overall message emphasizes a link between LED lighting and adverse health effects, drawing a contrast with traditional light sources and recommending the use of protective eyewear in situations where lighting cannot be controlled.

Speaker 0 argues that LEDs emit radio frequencies that harm people, the same stuff that comes from a cell phone, and that blue light is toxic to our body. They claim a digital light on your face and a street light on your face, and criticize putting LEDs all over faces as silly. If sticking to any type of colored bulb, they say you should use incandescent or halogen or a UV bulb, and “you just go tanning.” They state there’s no need to put LEDs on the face and suggest it should be outlawed because they were never pushed. They claim LEDs are linked to cataracts and mess up health, causing a lot of brain fog, making people unable to focus; in the grocery store, people can’t think because the lights are affecting health. If natural light isn’t available, they recommend getting a candle and placing candles and salt lamps around the house, or, if not, using incandescents or halogens and not bringing LEDs into the house. They further claim that many people with health issues like ringing in the ears are affected by LEDs and Wi-Fi in the home, and that this combination will mess you up.

The speaker discusses the Administration's ban on incandescent and halogen bulbs starting August 1, 2023. They express concern about the negative effects of LED bulbs, such as causing anxiety, restlessness, and impacting melatonin levels. The speaker also mentions that LED bulbs are linked to blindness, flicker excessively, and emit microwave radiation. They highlight the potential privacy issues with smart bulbs, as they can sync with various devices and collect personal information. The speaker advises stocking up on incandescent and halogen bulbs before the ban takes effect.

The transcript discusses LED lights and a supposed IoT (Internet of Things) capability. It states that on 04/09/2019, Target confirmed they had provided Internet of Things lighting. IoT lighting means everything is connected and data can be collected from ongoing activities. The example given is that if you walk into Target with your phone, the lights will sync up to your phone to obtain data about what you’re purchasing and what you’re doing. The narration links this event to the period just before 2020, suggesting it occurred prior to the surge in shopping and alleged shortages that year. The speaker then asserts that these LED lights have microscopic cameras in them so they can watch people from every angle. The claim is that other stores, such as Whole Foods, are using similar technology in price tags that can scan and see who is buying items to collect data. The main takeaway presented is that if you bring LED lights into your home, the same type of technology claimed to be in these stores could be in the LED lights you bring into your house.

The speaker describes a new device used to measure the spectrum of light, noting that under full sunshine it reveals all seven colors—“just like the rainbow”—and that this natural spectrum is straightforward. When measuring incandescence, the speaker highlights a “beautiful red hue” and claims there is “really none of the other stuff to make you go blind,” implying that incandescent light presents a safe, simple spectrum in comparison to other sources. The speaker then discusses LEDs, stating that they are “super weird to have LEDs” because they “cause blindness, cataracts, dizziness, headaches, fatigue,” and references “that color spectrum” as part of the issue. Fluorescence is described as being almost identical to LEDs in this respect. The speaker also mentions “full moonlight” in this context, implying a comparison between the spectral qualities of LEDs/fluorescent light and moonlight. A key point emphasized is that LEDs and fluorescent bulbs seem to mimic moonlight, which the speaker notes as a source of behavioral or perceptual effects, claiming that this similarity to moonlight is what contributes to people going nuts. The overall message centers on a contrast between the spectra of different light sources—sunlight with its full seven-color spectrum, incandescence with a prominent red hue and fewer problematic elements, and LEDs/fluorescent lighting with problematic health and perceptual effects and a moonlight-like quality.

An individual claims to be showing an assault weapon, presenting a device reading "fourteen fifteen," which they state should not exceed "point two zero." They assert that anyone nearby is being "radiated on." The individual suggests banning these devices that "radiate people" daily. They state they are going to purchase food from a business and will give them the reading. They conclude that this is how to make the community safer and reiterate the call to ban assault weapons.

There is a theory called Project Blue Beam, which involves lasers and orbs in the sky. Navy pilots have reported seeing these things on their radar. The speaker claims that the US government, or a group within it, is using directed energy weapons to create illusions in the atmosphere. They can make it look like a fleet of planes is about to attack, only to disappear and attack from another direction. This deception involves the use of voice of God weapons and the idea of evil aliens attacking. The speaker believes it is all deception and has looked at videos and can explain them away. They mention that there may be unreleased footage and photos. The purpose of this deception is seen as a distraction from human experimentation.

Speaker 0 says that at the lows people are buying incandescent bulbs because of a new ban, and it is important to stock up on these bulbs. Incandescent bulbs are described as very natural to our eyes, and it is emphasized that one should put incandescent bulbs into the home and not LEDs. The speaker claims the problem with LED lights is that they burn out the back of the eye, which “causes cataracts,” and that smart bulbs and devices connected to WiFi ping radiation to the skull while plugged in. Therefore, the advice is to avoid anything with LED and anything that's smart—specifically, smart remote, smart sensors, smart plugs, and smart bulbs. The speaker notes that these are all LED lights installed in the hardware store. Additionally, the speaker urges avoiding anything with Bluetooth built in because Bluetooth operates at the same frequency as a microwave. The overall message is that many marketing tactics push the new bulbs, but one should stick to incandescent bulbs.

In the video, Speaker 0 explains that LED lights are being pushed aggressively, even given away for free, because they will connect everything in the Internet of Things. These LED lights can be connected to a cellphone, a tablet, all home appliances, the thermostat, cars, the garage, and more, allowing monitoring and data collection from these devices. They can also be used to turn off devices based on climate reasons and other factors, meaning you are connected up to the Internet of Things. What’s interesting, according to the speaker, is that these LED lights “ping a lot of microwave radiation,” which will be demonstrated in the next video. The speaker describes using a TriField EMF tester to check the radiation coming off the LED lights and shows results labeled as “off the charts.” The claim is that by bringing these lights into the home, microwave radiation is being pinged into the house. The speaker asserts that this microwave radiation can impact health, listing effects on the heart, brain, eyes, skin, and other organs. The LED lights’ capability to connect to the Internet of Things is highlighted again as part of this scenario. The video then notes a claim about a 2016 announcement from the AMA, stating that LED lights can increase the risk of cataracts and eye degeneration, implying long-term harm to eyesight while allegedly promoting environmental aims. In summary, the narrator claims: - LED lights are being pushed and given away because they enable the Internet of Things, connecting to smartphones, tablets, home appliances, thermostats, cars, and garages for monitoring and control. - These LEDs allegedly “ping a lot of microwave radiation,” detectable with an EMF tester, described as “off the charts.” - The radiation entering the home is claimed to impact health, including the heart, brain, eyes, skin, and other organs, in addition to enabling IoT connectivity. - The speaker cites a 2016 AMA statement asserting that LED lights can increase the risk of cataracts and eye degeneration.

The speaker is upset about a streetlight in front of their house that is spraying something. They believe it is the only one doing this and suspect it to be some kind of weapon. They mention that they recently washed their car and are concerned about it being affected.

The 5G system is seen as a dangerous weapon by some, being used by governments as a form of mass destruction in civilian areas. The industry is aware of this and even celebrates it. The goal behind this weapon is to reduce the population and maintain control over society. It is crucial for people to use the internet to share life-saving information and combat this threat.

In the discussion, LED light bulbs are described as toxic and advisable to carry a warning label. The speaker presents two specific warnings about LED lighting: - Warning 1: The flicker effect. LED lights flicker at a frequency that is unperceptible to the eye but claimed to be brain-disrupting, potentially leading to sleep disturbances, migraines and headaches, brain fog and fatigue, and harm to the health of the eyes. - Warning 2: Unhealthy levels of blue light. LED lights are said to emit high levels of blue light, which can disrupt the circadian rhythm and affect mood. The speaker asserts the following factual contrasts to incandescent and halogen lighting: LED lights drain energy and life from the body, whereas incandescent and halogen lighting contain a full spectrum of light and infrared light that supposedly adds energy and light to the body, making people healthy. A call to action is issued to switch out lighting, with an optimistic note that the 2022 ban on incandescence and halogens might be reversed in 2025. The message emphasizes that these symptoms and effects can be life-altering for some individuals, and it ends with a request to share the video.

The speaker notes finding incandescent bulbs at Ace Hardware, highlighting a range of watt options such as 25-watt bulbs (including 25-watt globes) and some 40-watt bulbs, which the speaker says can work and are preferable to other options described as “torture.” They compare these to LEDs, pointing out that the spectrum of light from LEDs varies, with a specific emphasis on the yellow spectrum being “off the charts” in the examples shown. The speaker suggests that when entering someone’s home, you might as well ask what type of light bulbs they have. They raise a point about LEDs enabling additional features beyond lighting, stating that LEDs can be connected to the Internet and may have cameras, syncing with devices, and could watch or monitor you. This leads to the claim that the push toward LEDs was not only about saving energy but about having connected bulbs that could spy on people, while noting that old incandescent bulbs “don’t spy on you.” The speaker asserts that this surveillance motivation is connected to government actions, claiming that incandescents were being banned and eliminated because they supposedly prevented spying on citizens. The overall message contrasts incandescent bulbs with LEDs, presenting LEDs as part of a dystopian surveillance trend and portraying incandescents as non-spying alternatives.

Speaker critiques LED red-light therapy, calling LEDs unhealthy and arguing they emit radio frequencies like street lights; asserts there are no health studies showing LEDs are healthy. Claims Monsanto and IBM created the LED to push robotic, transhuman, or AI futures and that red light therapy is nonsensical unless used outdoors. Advises using incandescent or halogen instead of standing in front of a pane of LEDs. Links LEDs to blindness, cataracts, brain fog, and nausea; notes how shoppers report feeling sicker under store lighting. Argues there is no heat from LEDs and questions the logic of red-light therapy. Promotes sun exposure as the true biohack: sit in the sun for two hours, go out in nature. Says the sun is free and constant, and that most illnesses can be reversed by simply sitting in the sun.

In this video, the speaker talks about how people often get called conspiracy theorists when they share things online. They mention reading US patents and provide examples of patents related to directed energy weapons, brain manipulation, and remote transmission of sound. The speaker highlights that one of the patents is assigned to the United States Air Force. They question whether the US government would use these patents on its own citizens.

Incandescent lights are being used as part of a smart city agenda, but they are actually harmful and can be weaponized. The lights have a radar scanner that can increase or reduce the pulse rate, which can be used as a weapon. The evidence shows that Gateshead Council and others are trying to commit genocide on the people. This technology is uninsurable and councils have a duty of care to the people. It is an untested and unproven experiment that goes against the Nuremberg Code. People need to wake up and get involved.

The speaker describes living an Amish-like lifestyle with his wife in a cabin. He claims artificial light disrupts the circadian rhythm, negatively impacting overall health. He urges viewers to get morning sunlight to counteract this effect, stating that artificial light tricks the eyes and is part of a deliberate plan to steal minds, bodies, and souls. He believes this manipulation makes people sick, pushing them towards Big Pharma, ultimately leading to premature death. He asserts humans are meant to live over 100 years and encourages viewers to prioritize sunlight exposure and minimize artificial light at night. He says LED lights, despite being marketed as energy-efficient, are flickering and further disrupting minds. He encourages getting sunlight despite concerns about "Kim Trails."

The speaker discusses assault weapons and shows a device that emits radiation. They argue that this device is an assault weapon because it exceeds the acceptable radiation level. The speaker suggests that instead of focusing on banning traditional assault weapons, efforts should be made to ban devices that emit harmful radiation. They mention going to a business to give them the device as a way to make the community safer.

Mark Baker, founder and president of the Soft Lights Foundation, and Clayton (Speaker 0) discuss the health and societal concerns around LED lighting. Baker argues that LED lights are devastating to health due to their blue-rich spectra, prevalence in night environments, and the resulting impact on sleep, mood, circadian biology, and overall well-being. He describes personal experiences that motivated his activism, including a mental breakdown linked to LED exposure and a subsequent shift to full-time advocacy. Baker explains that LEDs are now ubiquitous: LED headlights in cars, blue-rich LED streetlights, general-service LED lamps in homes, and intense LED indicators on appliances. He notes that emergency vehicles with flashing LEDs are also problematic for some people. He acknowledges that the issue feels overwhelming to many, including bureaucrats, which adds to the difficulty of solving it. The conversation delves into Baker’s backstory. In the mid-2010s, as high-powered LED lights proliferated, he noticed blue-rich headlights and 5,000 Kelvin streetlights that disrupted his psychological wellbeing. Living in California, he experienced intense lighting at night from apartment windows and, after attempting to contest changes with city officials, suffered a severe mental breakdown when his school district refused to turn off the LEDs. This led to hospitalization and redirected his career toward advocacy, studying physics, government regulation, and organizing with others suffering similarly. Baker emphasizes that many people experience LED-induced sensitivities: migraines, epileptic seizures, sleep disruption, and even suicidal thoughts for some. He notes that individuals with astigmatism report driving difficulties due to LED headlights. He characterizes the public as having diverse responses: some people are highly sensitive to LEDs, others notice little to no effect. He frames the community as “canaries in a coal mine” for broader environmental and health impacts. The discussion covers the science of light. The body has photoreceptors beyond the eyes, including in skin and tissues, with blue wavelengths around 450 nanometers linked to circadian regulation. He asserts that artificial light at night interferes with melatonin suppression and cellular repair processes, thereby increasing health risks. He argues that the spectral distribution of many LEDs, with a prominent spike in blue light and no infrared, contrasts with incandescent light, which has a warmer, red-yellow spectrum and includes infrared. He maintains that LEDs are further from natural light than incandescent sources and that this spectral shift affects mood, sleep, and health. On policy and regulation, Baker critiques the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which directed the Department of Energy to pursue solid-state lighting and set a minimum luminous efficacy of 45 lumens per watt. He contends that the DOE did not coordinate with the FDA to ensure safety standards, so LEDs entered markets without assessing flicker, color temperature, or overall quality. He suggests this failure contributed to a mismatch between efficiency goals and health outcomes. He calls for reintroducing safe, healthy lighting and undoing “the effective ban on incandescence,” arguing that incandescents were healthier and that the current LED emphasis ignores health impacts. Baker discusses practical implications for sleep and daily life. He recommends reducing exposure to night-time LED lighting, using warmer color temperatures (around 2,700 Kelvin or lower), and installing measures to limit blue light in bedrooms. He notes that even skin exposure to light and non-visual photoreceptors can affect sleep. He mentions that some LEDs are being redesigned to imitate incandescent light, including “natural light” LEDs with broader spectral distributions and devices that incorporate infrared light to soften nighttime exposure. He also highlights the challenge of modern fixtures that integrate LEDs into fixtures rather than as replaceable bulbs, complicating the shift away from blue-rich lighting. The Soft Lights Foundation provides resources at softlights.org, including a campaign to ban blinding car headlights and an LED incident report for the FDA. Baker mentions a Change.org petition with tens of thousands of signatures, a database of incident reports to push regulatory action, and a resources section with scientific articles. He encourages joining the Ban Blinding LEDs Facebook group and engaging with regulatory and legal efforts (e.g., lawsuits) to address LED-related health concerns. In closing, Baker argues the system resists change, driven by arrogance, incompetence, negligence, and financial incentives, but denies a conspiratorial killing intent. He invites listeners to learn more, sign petitions, and consider environmental and health impacts when choosing lighting options.

This video discusses a piece of technology in Gateshead that is being misrepresented as a harmless street light. However, it is actually a dangerous weapon. The speaker shows the hardware and explains how it is used for harmful purposes. They highlight the illegal and unregulated nature of this equipment and express concern about the potential harm it can cause to people's health. The speaker also mentions the cover-up by Gateshead Council and calls for action to expose the truth about this technology. Overall, the video raises serious concerns about the deployment of this untested and dangerous equipment.

This video discusses the dangers of radio frequency radiation and the impact of smart meters and 5G technology. It highlights the control system implemented by the government and the health risks associated with RF radiation. The video includes personal testimonies, scientific studies, and evidence of the harmful effects of RF radiation on the body. It emphasizes the need for shielding and protection against EMF radiation. The speaker provides resources for further information and suggests using CBD as an antioxidant to counteract the effects of RF radiation. The video concludes with a call to action to raise awareness and protect ourselves from the harmful effects of RF radiation.

The speaker discusses the dangers of 5G technology, citing a Department of Defense report linking it to various health issues, including cancer and heart problems. They warn of the potential harm caused by exposure to this technology and urge people to protect themselves. The speaker also promotes a book called "Transhuman Genocide" as a resource for understanding and combating these threats. They emphasize the need for awareness and preparedness in the face of what they describe as a covert war using energy weapons.

Mark Baker, founder and president of the Soft Lights Foundation, argues that LED lights are devastating to health and leverages his personal experiences to advocate for change. The interview explores how blue-rich LED lighting has become ubiquitous, including car headlights, streetlights, household general service lamps, and indicators on appliances, as well as assorted night-time sources like smoke detectors and alarm indicators. Baker describes his awakening to the issue in the mid-2010s. While teaching in California, he noticed blue-rich LED headlights and 5,000 Kelvin LED streetlights that disrupted his psychological well-being. An apartment on the second floor was flooded with intense light, leading to a mental breakdown when his school district refused to switch off the lights. This event redirected him from teaching to full-time advocacy, involving him in learning the physics of light, government regulation, and connections with others suffering from LED exposure around the world. He recounts that many people initially resist confronting LED issues because the problem feels overwhelming. He notes the pervasiveness of LED lighting—car headlights, streetlights, household lamps, and even emergency vehicle lights—and emphasizes that bureaucrats often feel overwhelmed, which can impede action. He describes a community of people who report a range of sensitivities and health effects linked to LED exposure, including migraines, epileptic seizures, and, in some cases, suicidal ideation, as well as driving difficulties for people with astigmatism. He frames the community as “canaries in a coal mine,” highlighting that different people have different sensitivities and that some may be unaware of how LED lighting affects their sleep or mood. The discussion highlights that LED lights emit a spike at blue wavelengths, particularly around 450 nanometers, which is tied to regulating circadian rhythms and wakefulness. Baker argues that artificial light at night interferes with melatonin suppression and cellular repair processes, thereby disrupting sleep and health. He asserts that the natural night environment should be preserved as much as possible and that LEDs, with their spectral distribution and lack of infrared, diverge significantly from natural light. On how LEDs work, Baker explains that LED stands for Light Emitting Diode, a solid-state lighting technology that emits photons through an electronic process, not combustion. He highlights issues such as flicker due to drivers, directional light emission, and the spectral power distribution across wavelengths. He notes that the Department of Energy acknowledged the directional nature of LED light and, at one point, eliminated infrared light as waste heat; later, scientists recognized the benefits of infrared light for certain applications. He contends that the shift from incandescent to LED lighting was pursued for energy savings but without proper standards for safety, flicker, or quality, and without adequate evaluation by the FDA, which the law required to collaborate with the DOE. Baker traces the policy trajectory: the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed DOE to evaluate solid-state lighting, and by 2007 the minimum luminous efficacy standard (45 lumens per watt) effectively phased out incandescent bulbs. He argues that the DOE did not ensure safety or quality standards, focusing only on efficiency. This, he claims, led to widespread adoption of LEDs without comprehensive health safeguards and without FDA oversight. Regarding sleep and nighttime exposure, Baker cites evidence that even tiny indicators and devices in bedrooms—smoke detectors, nightlights, routers, and other LED indicators—can interfere with sleep and circadian rhythms. He notes that skin exposure to light also influences physiological processes, expanding the scope beyond ocular effects. He stresses the potential health risks associated with long-term exposure, including cancer, diabetes, and mood disorders. Regarding solutions, Baker argues for reintroducing incandescent technology and reducing reliance on LED-heavy lighting, while pushing for FDA evaluation and regulation of LED products. He mentions practical adjustments, such as choosing lower color temperatures (around 2700 Kelvin or lower), avoiding flicker, and using alternative bulbs for fixtures where possible. He describes programs and campaigns by the Soft Lights Foundation, including a petition against blinding car headlights and a system for LED incident reporting to the FDA. He points to resources on softlights.org, a campaign to stop blue-rich LED headlights, and a Facebook group called Ban Blinding LEDs for community support. For actionable guidance, Baker encourages individuals to minimize night-time LED exposure in their environments, shield streetlights when possible, switch to warmer lighting, and seek regulatory change to allow safer lighting options, including incandescent or incandescent-inspired LEDs with infrared components. He invites people to learn more through Soft Lights Foundation resources and to participate in advocacy and reporting efforts.