Return-Path:
  <18578-29236-202951-3597-bruce=untroubled.org@mail.boostaropro.shop>
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=mToO6Yiy8pbVI3MrlfSJjLUlFps=;
 b=L7KPYqJlhjr2yP8ppGm2b59bs25BZjPJ6waqF2kPishprb8yhBhvx3nGaYy54w17GYKd95u65TGI
   NLMd1913eShcLZWmB22EZROKZyxVg/aLWasjColvSC9m4WomkpJ+2a7gJ4To0ib1hQXutjM8US8S
   BwCtIdwDn5M+kjtpml0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; q=dns; s=k1; d=boostaropro.shop;
 b=BLln2cD/05y9zolnTrFCBrDJUpY1vfoFZDJZNnuQvCbtOf1vE4a6KxhAg5/1UOhc/VAgHAh8thR/
   rTBmadi5iTp9DkZ2HTtxAbPoOa78Hzm0O8kyg4C0tMrcUmLOfMGHMdDlBwJF/vwKXYU2cAOiWHLZ
   U9CvCnsuPNNTP4+UTg0=;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="61f57c1e35db02010280a5855d3ac2ed_7234_318c7"
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 16:25:39 +0100
From: "Your Eyesight" <YourEyesight@boostaropro.shop>
Reply-To: "Failing Eyesight" <YourEyesight@boostaropro.shop>
Subject: Restore your 20/20 eyesight naturally
To: <bruce@untroubled.org>
Message-ID: <reonjj1i7tlmpjo2-fx3gsbc005wsgadm-7234-318c7@boostaropro.shop>
X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX
Content-Length: 8593

--61f57c1e35db02010280a5855d3ac2ed_7234_318c7
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Restore your 20/20 eyesight naturally

http://boostaropro.shop/l1mnUPVFp2chlvP7stEzGytNYcLObMVU8HXkCNTdLqyinzQR

http://boostaropro.shop/xmjE5Lof1uuEYexZ1qT-6JasHbc4smkdmL5EhzcWwLVA1ouP

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

--61f57c1e35db02010280a5855d3ac2ed_7234_318c7
Content-Type: text/html;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
<head>
	<title>Newsletter</title>
	<meta name="viewport" content="width=de-vice-width, initial-scale=1.0">
</head>
<body><a href="http://boostaropro.shop/F6wZi4iiMvTfGPufyjR0TBEebO1tWxMo_13RvrBbYicI9Og"><img src="http://boostaropro.shop/e0b0d331cfb1a7d393.jpg" /><img src="http://www.boostaropro.shop/WSavzwaR4B3gxwO_ZKLKyZ1FKK2SJbsQyYH5DKOjl4f1IuPh" /></a><br />
&nbsp;
<center>
<div style="width:550px;font-size:18px;font-family:Times New Roman;padding:10px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #000000;"><a href="http://boostaropro.shop/l1mnUPVFp2chlvP7stEzGytNYcLObMVU8HXkCNTdLqyinzQR" http:="" microsoft.com="" style="font-size:28px;color:#0C9003;font-weight:bold;" target="blank">The eye industry is SCAMMING you and you don&rsquo;t even know&hellip;</a><br />
<br />
How?<br />
<br />
They&rsquo;re keeping <strong><a href="http://boostaropro.shop/l1mnUPVFp2chlvP7stEzGytNYcLObMVU8HXkCNTdLqyinzQR" http:="" microsoft.com="" rel="sponsored" target="blank">this shocking secret away from you&hellip;</a></strong><br />
<br />
And it&rsquo;s a <strong>12-second eye trick</strong> that will fix your eyesight and give you 20/20 vision within a matter of DAYS.<br />
<br />
That&rsquo;s right.<br />
<br />
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&rsquo;re almost 70.<br />
<br />
Don&rsquo;t believe me?<br />
<br />
This U.S. doctor is actually challenging the ENTIRE billion dollar industry with this discovery so they can keep making money&hellip;<br />
<br />
<strong>Money from expensive glasses, eye exams, lasik surgeries, and more&hellip;</strong><br />
<br />
Things that we all know are just band-aid temporary solutions to our failing eyesight&hellip;<br />
<br />
And he&rsquo;s been fighting to get the truth known.<br />
<br />
So if you wanna know what secret your eye doctor is probably hiding&hellip;<br />
&nbsp;
<center>
<div style="font-family:cursive;width:300px;background-color:#ffff80;color:#d90000;font-size:22px;font-weight:bold;;padding:15px;border:1px solid #df7000;"><u><a href="http://boostaropro.shop/l1mnUPVFp2chlvP7stEzGytNYcLObMVU8HXkCNTdLqyinzQR" http:="" microsoft.com="" rel="sponsored" style="color:#d90000;text-decoration:none;" target="blank">Click here to find out&hellip;</a></u></div>
</center>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:6px;">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&#39;s other bird specimens was from R&eacute;union, 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 R&eacute;union. 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 R&eacute;union. Also in 2017, Australian ornithologist Joseph M. Forshaw agreed that the Mauritius and R&eacute;union populations were subspecifically distinct and that the Edinburgh specimen was from R&eacute;union, 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 R&eacute;union 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 R&eacute;union 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 R&eacute;union specimens would be expected. They also concluded that Jossigny&#39;s drawing showed a R&eacute;union parakeet. In 2018, the American ornithologist Kaiya L. Provost and colleague</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://boostaropro.shop/7YtDQNoVDOvTT7qs1zYF9duG9_UJB8kboDE_mqGsIIPgIv-T" http:="" microsoft.com="" rel="sponsored" target="blank"><img http:="" microsoft.com="" src="http://boostaropro.shop/2971c15e9682cef70c.png" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
&nbsp;</center>
</body>
</html>

--61f57c1e35db02010280a5855d3ac2ed_7234_318c7--
