One of this issues I seem to be running up against with regards to scientific inquiry is this notion of scientific investigation versus persuasion. Growing up in a scientific environment, I understand the process of investigation a bit better than I understand the art and tactics of persuasion.

For me, the process of investigation is as follows

  • observing patterns
  • gathering evidence
  • evaluating evidence and observations
  • using inductive and deductive reasoning process to come to an evidence-based hypotheses about what is going on
  • testing the hypothesis in whatever ways are possible (for example, repeating an experiment)
  • using the results from this testing process to re-evaluate the hypothesis and if necessary, the evidence used (sometimes the evidence is faulty and needs to be discarded)
  • refine and repeat

At some point in this process, if you do a good job, you will come to something like a conclusion or a theory – in other words, something more solid and evidence-based than a hypothesis or educated guess.

This is the source of what medical doctors call my “beliefs.”

My theory about biomedical implants is far more than a hypothesis or “belief.” A person can have a belief with no evidence at all. To have a theory, from the standpoint of science, means that you have been testing your evidence based hypothesis for some time, and it’s stood up to tests and scrutiny. To this end, as I’ve said again and again to doctors, I want my assertions to be appropriately (not inappropriately) questioned. That is the kind of thing that strengthens investigation. But this is what never happens.

My assumption has been – as most people I think are expected to assume – that doctors are ethically obligated to work in the best interest of their patient, according to strict ethical standards, using best practices which center a scientific evidence-based approach. But this assumption is now looking to me to be extremely false. So now my evidence-based hypothesis about the medical establishment is that something unethical and likely very illegal is going on, and what this appears to include is coercion, control, and deliberate malpractice with murderous intent. And that is what I am dealing with. The issue of motive is less clear, and possibly complex, but it appears to be cultural, financial, and power-based. This is not originating with individual providers or even with specific hospital systems – it is endemic in health care. The crimes themselves may be (and probably is) focused on certain individuals. The FBI is not policing this system and may in fact be operating it. That is my current hypothesis.

With regard to persuasion – my primary care physicican, Dr Warrington, has indicated in my medical records several times with different wording, that I would like to “persuade” people about my “beliefs.” This is not what I’m trying to do. I’m presenting evidence, and a theory of what is behind the evidence, and based on this, I’m looking to take appropriate next steps. This is where I get stuck, but the reason I’m getting stuck is not, as is being implied, because evidence is lacking, and it is not because the appropriate technology doesn’t exist. Something else is going on, and I think that it is a system of bribery, coercion, and other forms of control. 

web page updated 29 August 2022