My intent with this visit was to map out a plan of action to assess and address what I now accepted to be a biomedical implant issue. To this end I’d sent Dr Warrington a PDF with an outline of my thoughts about how best to go about this.
Unlike most of my doctors visits after 2021, this one does not seem to have an associated recording. I think what happened is that I recorded the visit, but that my recording device died and had to be replaced before I had a chance to transfer the file. With regards to the doctor’s chart notes from this visit, I see the PDF I’d sent ahead of time, outlining ideas for step by step strategy, isn’t mentioned. By now there’s a pattern emerging of Dr Warrington both telling me he’s at a loss for ideas on how to move forward, and discouraging me from further exploration because other providers will be “hesitant.” Different reasons are given for the anticipated hesitancy, but always it seems to do with issues of evidence.
I do remember that in this discussion, Dr Warrington indicated that providers’ hesitance has centered, and would continue to center, around skepticism about the factuality of my assertions. So, in order to address that alleged concern, I decided to organize the photographic and data-based evidence I had, with the idea that I’d first address and allay Dr Warrington’s doubts, and then, once we’d established a common understanding, he and I could work as a team to address any potential doubts in other providers who might be positioned to help. Potential success of this plan was contingent on Dr Warrington being both responsive to a scientific process, and working in good faith on my behalf. As I am his patient, and he my doctor, I think this was a reasonable expectation. Ultimate success was also contingent on other doctors and scientists working in good faith and within the bounds of established scientific and medical ethics.
If doctors and scientists are routinely not working within the bounds of established ethical practices, as it appears, increasingly – I think it needs to be asked why not. What, and who, is behind it?
Along with omissions, some things in Dr Warrington’s chart notes from this visit are not accurate. I described to him how the Aceco frequency tracer (bug detector) antenna works, and he then described it in his notes as “bi-directional.” But I think the proper term would be unidirectional. And it is not correct to say, as he did in the notes, that the Aceco FC 6002 MKII is not sensitive enough. The frequency tracer hasn’t worked since January 2021, because it was sabotaged, but when it did work, it worked well. What it didn’t do was provide specific information about the signals it detected, for example, what they ID numbers are linked to, or what frequency band they were operating on. This is the kind of information that could help identify the source of the implants. I’m fairly certain the FBI and US military both have the ability to gather this information, so again, it’s a bit confusing why I’m doing this back and forth with a general practitioner, and so far have not able to access help from existing experts with jurisdiction over these sorts of issues.
Based on my recording of the next visit, which occurred on April 26, 2022, at this meeting I had asked Dr Warrington how he would like me to organize and present evidence of my claims, first for his examination, and then later, potentially for other specialists who could help assess the situation. He suggested Google Drive. Because most of what I had were photos and video, I ended up using Google cloud.
Another thing is around this time, the pharmacist apparently prescribed naloxone, an antidote to opioid overdose. I picked it up, but for me, it is an unnecessary prescription. It’s covered by my insurance, but it’s expensive.
This was the day after Easter. The night or morning before the visit, I’d had a dream of a blue medical glove at the 60th Avenue Max station. On the way home I saw a pair of blue gloves at an intersection near my apartment, and made the following video.