Return-path: <18579-29270-118442-3597-lojban=lojban.org@mail.boostaropro.shop> Envelope-to: lojban@lojban.org Delivery-date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:24:05 -0800 Received: from sjan.characted.com ([23.247.83.162]:40411 helo=oboe.boostaropro.shop) by d7893716a6e6 with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <18579-29270-118442-3597-lojban=lojban.org@mail.boostaropro.shop>) id 1pDT2A-00EU14-Eo for lojban@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:24:04 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=k1; d=boostaropro.shop; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Message-ID; i=YourEyesight@boostaropro.shop; bh=gI/qDk/qBBh20RavMc0taqSmc90=; b=NS4askxMyHBtVfIndgteoVAIl/p3HTcQZTP9HqAfyweA02VXJ2Ga+b+FJxaT5pV9WWl4O8PIHIgg UD2EDpyOGhL02VcflUjP2A0T2QATopjouYeIFyyMltaX9ovA4jO3UvhFkx912AGU9PhkBv5FASAf kVEPK+WZ0E8dYY9Obqo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; q=dns; s=k1; d=boostaropro.shop; b=I/PuCbH5eJHRjJ4xVYPWPGK6hc7mw1jA+SOYX2pHkPQfzzBW/PCdLtZpTIw+9RpCDuTKuDXOvxBa 2rYtXhG4LAHi9njZdpbfBQBLqIXS5DnFFZkOvNyQC0IWEIAuvFwpsFZeKA5lx1qDj0O43jTwvzgX 47KqScwNmysgeYEXoss=; Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="4a1402468a02e3963a90cdfbf5d9f5c8_7256_1ceaa" Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 17:23:30 +0100 From: "Failing Eyesight" Reply-To: "Failing Eyesight" Subject: Restore your 20/20 eyesight naturally To: Message-ID: <3qxeqyy7gkmb4ovi-ad1l7vnpsd13osll-7256-1ceaa@boostaropro.shop> X-Spam-Score: 2.8 (++) X-Spam_score: 2.8 X-Spam_score_int: 28 X-Spam_bar: ++ X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "f6db9eef8881", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Restore your 20/20 eyesight naturally http://boostaropro.shop/M5fAD62uELGEUPpo2P1VK3MNouLsPKHhsumNH7TGzwEvmZjK http://boostaropro.shop/qYRDOd8PNoiOo3a7r1Whge_OS9SDzdJ-Ewoh8lFRcyz17YpH Content analysis details: (2.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: boostaropro.shop] 1.2 URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the ABUSE SURBL blocklist [URIs: boostaropro.shop] -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, high trust [23.247.83.162 listed in list.dnswl.org] 2.7 RCVD_IN_PSBL RBL: Received via a relay in PSBL [23.247.83.162 listed in psbl.surriel.com] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST BODY: HTML font color similar or identical to background 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.4 PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT BODY: MIME text/plain claims to be ASCII but isn't 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID_EF Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 1.9 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% [cf: 100] 0.9 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) --4a1402468a02e3963a90cdfbf5d9f5c8_7256_1ceaa Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Restore your 20/20 eyesight naturally http://boostaropro.shop/M5fAD62uELGEUPpo2P1VK3MNouLsPKHhsumNH7TGzwEvmZjK http://boostaropro.shop/qYRDOd8PNoiOo3a7r1Whge_OS9SDzdJ-Ewoh8lFRcyz17YpH Cheke and the Dutch ornithologist Justin J. F. J. Jansen stated in 2016 that the Edinburgh specimen has no clear provenance information, and that it may have been collected from Mauritius (only one of Dufresne's other bird specimens was from Réunion, while several were from Mauritius). They noted that, unlike modern Mauritian specimens, the pink neck ring of the Edinburgh specimen continued uninterrupted around the back of the neck, similar to what Buffon and Levaillant described, but that from where the specimen Levaillant described was, was unclear. They stated that the genetic differences between the specimens were not necessarily subspecific, but because the Mauritian specimens were much more recent than the Edinburgh specimen, the similarity of the former specimens could have been due to a genetic bottleneck, resulting from a severe decline of the Mauritian population in the 19th century. They concluded that the default assumption should be that it came from Réunion. They also called attention to a usually overlooked, unlabelled sketch from around 1770 by French artist Paul Philippe Sanguin de Jossigny of a ring-necked parakeet with a collar encircling the neck, which they thought could have been from either island. In 2017, Hume agreed that the Edinburgh specimen could have come from Mauritius. He stated that the genetic differences could be due to variation within the population there, and pointed out that some other bird species migrate between Mauritius and Réunion. Also in 2017, Australian ornithologist Joseph M. Forshaw agreed that the Mauritius and Réunion populations were subspecifically distinct and that the Edinburgh specimen was from Réunion, and should be designated the neotype of P. eques. The following year, Jones and colleagues, including authors of the DNA studies, Hume, and Forshaw, supported the identification of the Edinburgh specimen as a Réunion parakeet and the subspecific differentiation between the populations. They found that the specimen differed from all examined Mauritius specimens in having a complete pink collar, instead of having a gap at the back of the neck, a feature emphasised by Brisson, Buffon, and Levaillant in their descriptions of the Réunion parakeet, but not obvious in the photographs seen by Jones in the 1980s. Since populations on islands usually have lower genetic diversity than those on continents, they stated that the low level of differentiation between the Mauritius and Réunion specimens would be expected. They also concluded that Jossigny's drawing showed a Réunion parakeet. In 2018, the American ornithologist Kaiya L. Provost and colleague --4a1402468a02e3963a90cdfbf5d9f5c8_7256_1ceaa Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Newsletter
 
The eye industry is SCAMMING you and you don’t even know…

How?

They’re keeping this shocking secret away from you…

And it’s a 12-second eye trick that will fix your eyesight and give you 20/20 vision within a matter of DAYS.

That’s right.

And it works on just about anyone, no matter the age. That means your doctor is WRONG and there IS a way to reverse your bad eye sight even if you’re almost 70.

Don’t believe me?

This U.S. doctor is actually challenging the ENTIRE billion dollar industry with this discovery so they can keep making money…

Money from expensive glasses, eye exams, lasik surgeries, and more…

Things that we all know are just band-aid temporary solutions to our failing eyesight…

And he’s been fighting to get the truth known.

So if you wanna know what secret your eye doctor is probably hiding…
 










Cheke and the Dutch ornithologist Justin J. F. J. Jansen stated in 2016 that the Edinburgh specimen has no clear provenance information, and that it may have been collected from Mauritius (only one of Dufresne's other bird specimens was from Réunion, while several were from Mauritius). They noted that, unlike modern Mauritian specimens, the pink neck ring of the Edinburgh specimen continued uninterrupted around the back of the neck, similar to what Buffon and Levaillant described, but that from where the specimen Levaillant described was, was unclear. They stated that the genetic differences between the specimens were not necessarily subspecific, but because the Mauritian specimens were much more recent than the Edinburgh specimen, the similarity of the former specimens could have been due to a genetic bottleneck, resulting from a severe decline of the Mauritian population in the 19th century. They concluded that the default assumption should be that it came from Réunion. They also called attention to a usually overlooked, unlabelled sketch from around 1770 by French artist Paul Philippe Sanguin de Jossigny of a ring-necked parakeet with a collar encircling the neck, which they thought could have been from either island. In 2017, Hume agreed that the Edinburgh specimen could have come from Mauritius. He stated that the genetic differences could be due to variation within the population there, and pointed out that some other bird species migrate between Mauritius and Réunion. Also in 2017, Australian ornithologist Joseph M. Forshaw agreed that the Mauritius and Réunion populations were subspecifically distinct and that the Edinburgh specimen was from Réunion, and should be designated the neotype of P. eques. The following year, Jones and colleagues, including authors of the DNA studies, Hume, and Forshaw, supported the identification of the Edinburgh specimen as a Réunion parakeet and the subspecific differentiation between the populations. They found that the specimen differed from all examined Mauritius specimens in having a complete pink collar, instead of having a gap at the back of the neck, a feature emphasised by Brisson, Buffon, and Levaillant in their descriptions of the Réunion parakeet, but not obvious in the photographs seen by Jones in the 1980s. Since populations on islands usually have lower genetic diversity than those on continents, they stated that the low level of differentiation between the Mauritius and Réunion specimens would be expected. They also concluded that Jossigny's drawing showed a Réunion parakeet. In 2018, the American ornithologist Kaiya L. Provost and colleague





 
--4a1402468a02e3963a90cdfbf5d9f5c8_7256_1ceaa--