Connect with us

Alternative News

97% of Scientists Don’t Agree On The Cause of Climate Change, But They Do Agree On Some Things

Published

on

unsplash-logoRoxanne Desgagnés

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The notion that the planet is warming at an alarming rate due to an increase in man-made CO2 emissions is not nearly as proven by real science as the politicians, lobbyists, and activists would have you believe.

  • Reflect On:

    Can we recognize the patterns used in consensus-building and perception-building of global issues to help us discern between truth and deception?

I believe that it is now a firmly established fact that Western Industrialization has been harmful to the planet. Ecosystems have been disrupted, species have become extinct, soil has been degraded, and our water and air have become polluted in ways that we know for certain are harmful to human life and to life on the planet in general.

advertisement - learn more

Human beings of conscience have long petitioned our leaders to make changes, and in the obvious absence of any meaningful actions on the part of our governments and industries to stem the tide of pollution and degradation, our planet has continued to suffer.

The impact of Western Industrialization on ‘climate change’ is a bit of a different animal. Since Al Gore’s presentation of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ back in 2006, the argument was made that Western Industrialization through the use of fossil fuels was creating a “greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere and, if nothing was done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions–and most importantly CO2 emissions–then the planet would experience cataclysmic disasters threatening all forms of life on the planet.

Naturally, many people of conscience applauded the revelations and vowed to support initiatives that sought to reduce carbon emissions in our society. The only problem–and it still remains today–is that there is no way of proving that increased CO2 levels cause global warming.

With all the proven and clearly demonstrable negative environmental effects of Western Industrialization, we should be looking with a Spockian eyebrow into why it is only CO2 emissions that continues to get the lion’s share of attention from politicians, activists, and lobby groups. It would also be helpful to examine why these groups try to convince us of the virtual certainty that CO2 is the culprit of our climate woes, and dismiss any alternative views as coming from ‘deniers.’

The 97% Line

The famed line that ‘97% of Climate scientists agree that Climate Change is real’ is often bandied about in mainstream discourse by those with an agenda to hit the fossil fuel industry (and as a consequence, the general public) with a carbon tax or a global emissions trading scheme.

advertisement - learn more

Let’s put aside the question as to whether the 97% figure was arrived at by using biased statistical methods, and just focus on the statement itself. Its supreme vagueness makes it difficult to discount–by design. When it speaks of ‘Climate Change’ is it to be taken literally (i.e. that the climate changes over time)? If so, then one could probably not argue the obvious, and expect that 100% of scientists would agree. Climate Change itself is observable and has been recorded throughout our history. There are warming trends and cooling trends over long periods of time.

The phrase that used to be used was ‘Global Warming,’ however in recent years some small but clear signs of a cooling trend have made the term ‘Global Warming’ too easily negated, so the switch was made to ‘Climate Change.’

But what the ‘97% phrase’ literally means is not as important as what proponents of carbon reduction schemes want the public to think it means: They want you to think it means that 97% of scientists believe that the scientific evidence PROVES that CO2 emissions are the MAIN cause of Global Warming (a.k.a. ‘Climate Change’). The honest truth is–scientists DON’T KNOW.

What The Science Really Tells Us

We are led to believe that there are only two groups of scientists, two ‘camps’. One is the group of scientists who believe that CO2 emissions are the MAIN cause of Global Warming, while the other group doesn’t believe that CO2 emissions cause Global Warming. The latter group is labeled ‘Climate Deniers’ (again, a meaningless, pejorative term that literally means that some scientists don’t believe in climate).

In actual fact, the vast majority of climate experts, actual scientists who conduct the studies and analyses, fit somewhere in a very ‘inconvenient’ camp in the middle and see trends, signs, and a host of broad correlations across many variables, but recognize that they don’t have the ability to certify whether or not CO2 or even greenhouse gases as a whole have a significant impact on Global Warming. And we don’t have to cherry-pick our justification for saying this from so-called ‘climate deniers’ either. We can go straight to the documentation of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of scientists which the United Nations brought together to essentially find scientific backing for the idea that mankind and our current dependence on fossil fuels is causing the planet to warm at such an accelerated rate as to threaten human existence.

In the IPCC documents we can see how tenuous the link between climate change and CO2 emissions are, in their findings entitled ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.’ Here was one of their recommendations:

Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

In other words, there is no way of doing ‘experiments’ within this system in which the effects of CO2 are isolated and measured. There is no way to create a simulation of our climate and study the impact of CO2 on climate under laboratory conditions. The suggestion here is that the best that can be done is to create a host of different models based on parameterizing the variables and then creating a probability distribution of projections of the weather going forward. In other words, a weak ‘maybe’ is the best that science can actually produce with the climate system in terms of the effects of rising man-made CO2 levels.

Nonetheless, the models used by the United Nations ALL have the built-in bias that rising CO2 levels have a significant impact on warming. And as a consequence, theses models have  predicted a far greater warming of the planet than is actually occurring year after year.

If we go back to the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, we can see how much the agenda overshadowed and muted the actual science. The scientists included these three statements in the draft:

  1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
  2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”
  3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

The “Summary” and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians, not scientists. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary.’ Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:

  1. “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

No evidence was supplied for that conclusion. Nothing in the studies supported that statement. No studies were designed specifically to investigate cause, because this is not possible. Only observational studies showing correlation are available as sources. In other words, when we look into the SCIENCE, there is no direct evidence that CO2 causes global warming. In fact, there are no studies that CAN BE DONE THAT WOULD BE CAPABLE OF ESTABLISHING A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP.

Breaking Down The Agenda

In our latest episode of ‘The Collective Evolution Show’ on CETV, Joe and I dig deep into the science and break down the agenda behind the carbon tax and the related carbon emissions trading scheme. What becomes clear in our overall discussion is that the conclusions of scientists are not really getting out to the general public. All efforts are geared to try to make people believe that human activity through the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of global warming, and that the science behind this is solid and well-established, even though it isn’t. If you haven’t signed up already for CETV, go here so you can get access to the full discussion.

The Takeaway

This article does not take sides on the issue of Climate Change as such. I personally don’t know if CO2 has an effect on Climate Change, and if it does, what the extent of that effect is. When we really look into the science, we observe that it can give us an approximation at best, with probabilistic computer models based on observations of the past which, so far, have proven to be wildly inaccurate due to an undue expectation of the impact of CO2 on Climate Change.

What the article does point out, though, is a familiar pattern that we see again and again in global economic policy: Where there is money to be made by powerful people and groups, there will be extreme pressure brought to bear on a certain conclusion about what’s scientifically true and what actions need to be taken, where science is used as a pawn in these geopolitical and global economic power moves. Coming to recognize these patterns is an important part of discerning truth from deception, which empowers us to create real solutions for the world’s problems.

Free: Don't Miss The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

High Levels of Damage Have Been Discovered In Trees Near Cell Phone Towers

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple studies have raised concerns about different types of unnatural radiation and how it's impacting not only human health, but environmental health.

  • Reflect On:

    How are these technologies able to continuously roll out without any safety testing? Why are they still not required to go through safety testing? Would this not be in the best interests of everyone?

One strong theme among the citizenry of the world that receives no mainstream media attention is the issue of cell phone towers and the health/environmental threats they pose. There are thousands of peer-reviewed publications in vivo and in vitro that make it quite clear that electromagnetic radiation from our favourite gadgets, wireless devices, as well as the cell phone towers all over the globe are having a biological impact that’s a great cause for concern, or at the very least warrant appropriate safety testing before we continue down this path. This is something that has yet to be done.

This is exactly why a few years ago  200 scientists petitioned the United Nations to look deeper into this issue, to no avail.

Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes on the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.  (source)

Special note to our followers: Is 5G safe?  The 5G Health Summit, a worldwide call to action, features the world’s leading independent scientists, doctors and activists in the field. It’s going to be very informative and let people know what they can do about it. It’s all online, you can sign up and watch it for free here.

More on the Summit later in the article. 

Trees

Human health isn’t the only concern. In a  study published in Science of the Total Environment, researchers found,

High-level damage in trees within the vicinity of phone masts. We found out that from the damaged side there was always visual contact to one or more phone mast (s). Statistical analyses demonstrated that the electromagnetic radiation from cellphone towers is harmful to trees. Results show that the measurements in the most affected sides of damaged trees (i.e. those that withstand higher radiation levels) are different to all other groups. These results are consistent with the fact that damage inflicted on trees by cellphone towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree over time.

This constitutes a danger for trees worldwide. The further deployment of phone masts has to be stopped. Scientific research on trees under the real radio-frequency field conditions must continue.

The study lasted for 9 years and used more than 100 trees.

The field monitoring part of the study was performed in Bamberg and Hallstadt (Germany). Observations and photographic recordings of unusual or unexplainable tree damage were taken along with the measurement of electromagnetic radiation.

In 2015 measurements of RF-EMF (Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields) were carried out. A polygon spanning both cities was chosen as the study site, where 144 measurements of the radiofrequency of electromagnetic fields were taken at a height of 1.5 m in streets and parks at different locations. By interpolation of the 144 measurement points, we were able to compile an electromagnetic map of the power flux density in Bamberg and Hallstadt. We selected 60 damaged trees, in addition to 30 randomly selected trees and 30 trees in low radiation areas (n = 120) in this polygon.

The measurements of all trees revealed significant differences between the damaged side facing a phone mast and the opposite side, as well as differences between the exposed side of damaged trees and all other groups of trees in both sides. Thus, we found that side differences in measured values of power flux density corresponded to side differences in damage. The 30 selected trees in low radiation areas (no visual contact to any phone mast and power flux density under 50 μW/m2 ) showed no damage. Statistical analysis demonstrated that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone masts is harmful for trees. These results are consistent with the fact that damage afflicted on trees by mobile phone towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree over time.

What’s also interesting is that the study points out that natural forms of electromagnetic radiation are not the same and do not have the same impact has unnatural sources of radiation do on plant life. Several researchers have pointed out how this topic has received little attention and these physiological effects are being considered negligible.

The study also concludes that most studies that have  addressed the effects of microwaves on animals and plants have documented effects and responses at exposures below limits specified in the electromagnetic radiation exposure guidelines and it is therefore necessary to rethink these guidelines.

Since 2005, on the occasion of medical examinations of sick residents living near mobile phone base stations, changes in nearby trees (crown, leaves, trunk, branches, growth…) were observed at the same time as clinical symptoms in humans occurred. Since 2006 tree damages in the radiation field of mobile phone base stations were documented.

Trees that were in the radio shadow of buildings or of other trees remained healthy, because, the researchers hypothesized, they were protected from the radiation.

The research on EMF’s and their environmental impact is quite limited, and studies on humans show that this type of radiation affects biological organisms, especially humans. For example, a paper published in 2018 in Environmental Research titled “Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health” points out that. 

“Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload.”

What About 5G?

When it comes to 5G, a study published in 2019 in Frontiers in Public Health is one of many that raises concerns about 5G technology. It points out that “novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed.” It goes on to emphasize that the range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure.   These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function. In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts, acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.”

Information You Can Easily Send to Friends & The 5g Summit

We decided to produce a short, to the point free ebook called Is 5G Safe? An Easy To Understand Guide that looks at the 5G issue VERY clearly and concisely. We wrote it in language designed to be simple and factual. In our free ebook, we cover the science behind health effects and environmental effects (trees &  insects, like bees) when it comes to EMF radiation  from sources like 5G, 4G and 3G.

To help get this out to tens of thousands of people, we collaborated with our friends at the 5G Summit. You can download our ebook as a free gift you get when you sign up for the free 5G Summit: Worldwide Call To Action that starts on June 1st, 2020. It features some of the world’s leading scientists, doctors and activists in the field. It’s going to be very informative as well as let people know what they can do about it.

–> You can register for the summit and download our ebook here. After you sign up you can download our ebook on the next page.


It will look like this 👇

Free: Don't Miss The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Trump Unveils Plan That Would See Big Pharma Reap Massive Profits from COVID-19 Vaccine

Published

on

Aformer Big Pharma executive and a four-star General have just been appointed by President Trump to lead a “Manhattan project-style effort to develop a vaccine for the novel coronavirus.” The effort, called Operation Warp Speed, has set a goal to create 300 million doses of a non-existent vaccine by January.

Moncef Slaoui, who used to run research and development for the world’s largest vaccine company, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), oversaw the development of an Ebola vaccine in tandem with the American National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a biotech firm the company had acquired two years earlier, that was distributed in the West African nation of Liberia in 2015. Slaoui joined the board of directors of the Human Vaccines Project in 2018; a public-private partnership that intends to “accelerate the development of vaccines and immunotherapies against major global diseases” and counts with the participation of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world, including Sanofi Pasteur, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and, of course, GSK.

Joining him will be U.S. Army General Gustave F. Perna, commanding general of the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) – the primary provider of materiel to the United States Army – since 2016. As such, Perna has been in charge of logistical management for the Department of Defense’s (DoD) co-production agreements of American weapons systems with foreign countries, in addition to the approximately 149 locations worldwide and over 70,000 military and civilian employees who carry out the command’s motto: “If a Soldier shoots it, drives it, flies it, wears it, communicates with it, or eats it – AMC provides it.”

The announcement comes two days after a press release by the Department of Defense revealed that a $138 million contract was awarded to ApiJect Systems America for the production of millions of prefilled syringes as part of projects “Jumpstart” and “RAPID” (Rapid Aseptic Packaging of Injectable Drugs). The DoD claims that the contract will “dramatically expand U.S. production capability” of injectable vaccines by October of this year. Project Jumpstart, according to the press release, was coordinated with their Joint Acquisition Task Force and HHS’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), led by Dr. Robert Kadlec, who has recently been the subject of intense scrutiny over some highly questionable ties to Big Pharma and curious past.

A tug of war for the SNS

The Trump administration’s ostensibly independent program to develop and deploy a vaccine against COVID-19 had been in the hands of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner and Trump advisor, Peter Navarro, though Bloomberg reported in April that HHS Secretary Alex Azar had been tasked by Trump to speed up the development of a vaccine and had been meeting for at least a month prior with White House officials.

The rollout is occurring as Congressional attention focuses on irregularities surrounding the supply of ventilators in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), a thousand of which were shipped to South Africa just the other day. In addition, yesterday’s so-called “whistleblower” testimony by ousted Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) chief, Rick Bright, is also spotlighting the issues at the SNS, which is controlled by HHS’ ASPR, Robert KadlecBARDA is an office within ASPR that is tasked with sourcing pharmaceutical and medical supplies for the Strategic National Stockpile.

More controversy surrounding the Strategic National Stockpile erupted after Kushner made remarks about the role the SNS plays in emergency deployment situations. Kushner was harshly criticized for implying that the SNS belonged to the federal government and served only as a back-up for states, who should be accumulating their own stockpiles. Despite being contradicted by well-established guidelines, which make clear that the SNS is in place to shore up any deficiencies in a public health emergency, the White House deliberately changed the language on its website to back up Kushner’s erroneous assertions about the stockpile.

What seems clear, however, is that Kushner himself was not the mastermind behind the sudden policy tweak. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a spokesperson for the Office of the ASPR told CNN they had been using such language “for weeks now.” Considering the history of how the SNS came to be in the hands of the ASPR, this latest tweak to how the SNS is managed might just be a new wrinkle in an old plan to mass inoculate the population of the United States.

Mass involuntary vaccines and jostling for profits

Yesterday, President Donald Trump revealed that a decision had been made to mobilize the U.S. military to deliver mass vaccinations across the country. The “massive job,” however, still has no discernable vaccine yet to inject into the American population “at the end of the year.” Trump’s group of medical advisors, including NIAID director, Anthony Fauci, are skeptical that any such vaccine can be developed sooner than 12 to 18 months.

“Duplication only leads to infighting and slowing people down,” said former U.S. ASPR, Nicole Lurie regarding the creation of Operation Warp Speed. She decried the spirit of marketplace competition, stating that the world “should be engaged in this competition against the virus, not against one another.”

With over 110 COVID-19 vaccines in development – only eight of which have entered human trials – the race to be the vaccine chosen for deployment by the ASPR in the forthcoming potentially compulsory vaccination of more than 300 million people has many people seeing green.

Feature photo | President Donald Trump, left, listens as Moncef Slaoui, a former GlaxoSmithKline executive, speaks about the coronavirus in the Rose Garden of the White House, May 15, 2020, in Washington. Alex Brandon | AP

Article written by Raul Diego, for MintPress News where it first appeared. Posted here with permission. Diego is a MintPress News Staff Writer, independent photojournalist, researcher, writer and documentary filmmaker.

Free: Don't Miss The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Send This To Anyone Looking To Understand The Dangers of 5G

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The 5G debate is a big topic, yet many are still not clear exactly what 5G is and what the dangers are. We created a free, short and factual ebook to explore the topic from a neutral perspective.

  • Reflect On:

    Are you aware of what exactly 5G technology is? Are we hearing the whole truth about 5G from the mainstream media? Did you know that there are already thousands of peer-reviewed studies showing dangers associated with EMFs?

It’s one of the greatest debates of our recent times, perhaps only vaccines is a bigger health topic. The reason why there is such opposition to 5G is not because those people have been misinformed, it’s because they have chosen to do the research outside mainstream media. Unfortunately for the masses, mainstream media is designed to push narratives that benefit the corporations that own them, not tell the truth – this is not conspiracy, it’s basic economics.

Are you clear on exactly what 5G is? Are you wondering why there is such a debate about the subject? You’re not alone. Many people are wondering why this new technology has so many people concerned, and unfortunately, mainstream media is not doing a good job of informing people so they do understand, so we’re here to help!

As we promised during our 5G campaign we ran last year, we focused a great deal of our attention and energy working to raise awareness about 5G. We also spent the last year working within the community to find out the best ways to take part in stopping the rollout. Over the last year, we’ve had millions of eyes on the content we produced, effectively helping to raise more awareness about the issue, and now, we have created our first free ebook on the subject, and it focuses on bringing together the science of 5G in an easy to understand guide.

Information You Can Easily Send to Friends

One of the biggest challenges out there when it comes to alternative information is that it is often written in a very one sided manner, or it’s written with a great deal of emotion. Sometimes, information also comes off very ‘conspiracy-ish’ and it makes it hard to send to some of our friends and family. This, unfortunately, makes it difficult for ALL people to read and take from it as bias begins to creep in.

So we decided to produce a short, to the point free ebook called Is 5G Safe? An Easy To Understand Guide that looks at the 5G issue VERY clearly and concisely. We wrote it in language designed to be simple and factual. In our free ebook, we cover the science behind health effects and environmental effects when it comes to EMF radiation coming from sources like 5G.

Because of the way mainstream media has covered issues such as 5G, the general public has been misled into thinking there isn’t already droves of peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject of EMF, especially those related to the specific technology used in 5G. They also leave out the fact that thousands of doctors and scientists have been trying to warn the public about 5G, and instead only focus on ‘internet-based conspiracy theories,’ so as to attempt to cast enough doubt on the subject that no one looks into it.

Short and simple, the mainstream media has been irresponsible in reporting on the 5G issue. There has not been journalism, only repetition of what others who have not looked into the subject are saying. For this reason, it’s imperative people do their own research on the subject. We are in a time where we must get engaged in the creation of our world and society as people. Voting for politicians and listening to their ideas is not the answer, it is merely an illusion. We must get clear on what we truly want, and engage in creating it.

To help get this out to tens of thousands of people, we collaborated with our friends at the 5G Summit. You can download our ebook as a free gift you get when you sign up for the free 5G Summit: Worldwide Call To Action that starts on June 1st, 2020. I am one of the speakers in the summit and I focus on the consciousness implications of 5G and what the whole issue is pushing humanity to do.

The summit is another very important tool in understanding this issue as it brings together 40 of the top experts on this subject. You will learn about the science behind it and all that is being done to stop 5G rollout around the world.

–> You can register for the summit and download our ebook here. After you sign up you can download our ebook on the next page.
It will look like this 👇

The Takeaway

There is already a ton of peer-reviewed research about 5G and EMFs that should stop the 5G rollout. Most people simply don’t know about it. As the 5G rollout continues around the world, we are at a crucial junction in learning and taking clear action. Sitting back and waiting to see what happens will likely create the same results we have always seen when we do that – we allow a world to be created that we do not thrive in. So let’s get clear, get centred, and get engaged in creating a world where we can truly thrive.

As we always say in the CE Protocol, we are at a time where Breaking The Illusion is important in realizing we are not living ina society that truly supports our desire to thrive, but we can change that!

Register for the 5G Summit and download the ebook here.

Free: Don't Miss The 5G Summit

The 5G debate is going to be one of the biggest social issues of our time in the next year or two. Understanding the basics behind 5G dangers will be very important.

Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! You can also download our free ebook on the science of 5G once you sign up!

Click here to register now!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!