dennisfrancisblewett

Based on some research, it appears that the chemical that would release the drug, relative to the Elizabeth Holmes patent, would be an antigen. What antigen that is, I'm not sure. It's presumed that it's the antigen that gets tested for as of late in whatever home kits are being presented to the public, such as at Walgreens. It's probably whatever antigen the Elizabeth Holmes device was designed for relative to the SARS-CoV-1 epidemic/pandemic. What drug gets released? Dexametasone, maybe. It's probably whatever drug was meant for release relative to the SARS-CoV-1 epidemic(?)/pandemic(?). Regardless, I have my qualms about continuing to assist with resolving the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. I do not support slave rhetoric. I feel as though I am being treated as a slave in life. I've held a demand for political asylum, and my demand has been disregarded. My civil rights have been violated. I'm not too interested in pursuing this topic any further. I would like my legal remedies. It seems to me that people ought to start attacking the legal system (by physical means) in release of Elizabeth Holmes (in defense of person) in the hope that she assists with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Seriously. Start attacking them in self-defense. It appears the next step if for Elizabeth Holmes' technology to step-in and resolve things. I'm not interested in figuring out the patent and making my own version: It seems the pharmaceutic industry stole her technology to make stuff for diabetes. Elizabeth Holmes has a fair amount of technology: If wielded properly, she could probably make a way more powerful virus and start attacking people. What's been worrying me about her is whether or not she went to MIT as a child and whether or not she's some kind of earlier version of Washu Hakubi. The relative aspects of space-time and the multiverse lead to very strange interpretations of what may be going on in reality. It seems a public rebellion against government would suffice in this situation, whereby people start claiming in self-defense to release Elizabeth Holmes from her conviction. I have enough issues in life, such as questioning my reality. I hold a view that I'm in a holonomic dimension ("Christverse"), whereby things aren't actually real. I've also considered that maybe, somehow, I'm going to revert to being exactly 18-year-old, on-the-dot by "forces that be" in a response to gross governmental negligence and the gross child negligence that I experienced. I'm not mentally ill: I'm a critical thinker, and I think very different things about reality than many other people. For instance, I consider the Elizabeth Holmes situation may be a ruse. I'm not sure. Regardless, I'm not interesting in seeking a lot of peace and quiet: I've been homeless, wrongfully harassed as though I should be considered disabled/ill, unable to get stable housing, been dealing with finding a way of living (yet not wanting to seek significant work for U.S. dollar because I dislike the U.S. government and what it stands for), etc. etc. etc.

The main characteristic relating, in general, to reproductivity: Speciation.

I'm not sure that's qualifiable as evolution. Bacteria have genus and species. I presume the bacteria in the experiment were able to mate with each other, thus did not undergo speciation, which is a foundational requirement to argue that evolution occurred. It appears the video describes adaptation rather than evolution. When relating to something called "The Endangered Species Act," the issue with The Endangered Species Act is that the animal is (allegedly) having difficulty reproducing for more of its species to come about. Reproducibility and specificity of mating capability appears to be a foundational aspect of something being considered its own species. What bothers me about the theory of evolution is why evolution would lead to more complex life-forms rather than entropy working on satisfying the death drive (Freudian psychology) in working on making life forms that die (dead for good) faster. When you think of universe as a block (block universe theory, supported by the theory of special relativity), then you consider it's a universe with no free will, thus leading to a lock-in physical self. No free will, no ability to interact with reality... seems very depressing making "living" beings slaves/tools of reality to experience its up's and down's until death. A mindless existence, I feel. Yes, evolution is a theory. My problem with the theory relates to the concept of "death drive." Maybe the term is "destrado"/destrudo or "mortido." I don't really remember.

Under the dissociative identity (presumed) "Cyberman" or maybe it was "Genecks" or maybe "Bio-Hazard," the body that hosted such identities interacted with this forum. This forum was way different back in the years of 2005/2006. However, it turned from hypography.com to scienceforums.com. What is with the website maintaining a labelling with "Hypography" with the sub-forum board "Feedback to Hypography"?

Seems to be working. Thank you for the suggestion.

In response to my last post in this thread, I think the use of the nuclear fallout shelters does not necessarily need to be a last resort. It may be used right now, actually. And I think it would be a very effective measure against SARS-CoV-2. Attached are images related to an Electronic Freedom of Information Act request that I recently did. "(3)" / source in images: “Civil Defense and Homeland Security: A Short History of National Preparedness Efforts.” <https://training.fema.gov/hiedu/docs/dhs%20civil%20defense-hs%20-%20short%20history.pdf> Accessed: January 14th, 2022.

I've generated a new avatar and am having difficulty uploading it. Please investigate. Image attached.

This thread is being built on-top of this (0) thread. I’ve been spending more time analyzing the SARS-CoV-2 technologies and responses, and it appears to me one of the best things we can do is get a technology created by Elizabeth Holmes adapted to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and start using it to combat SARS-CoV-2. The technology was learned about from a YouTube video (1) by user going by the name “ColdFusion,” whereby there was an image of the technology (presumed patented) [see ~1:55 of video]. Image of technology from video link: Here (link) (2) appears to be the patent. Managing to get that technology re-worked for SARS-CoV-2 would be a task of its own. I presume you have to figure out what chemical goes through the blood that is an indicator of SARS-CoV-2 infection and have a drug released to counter-act proliferation of host infection by SARS-CoV-2. I would need to study more biochemistry in relation to that in order to figure that out. I have a suspicion that the chemical of interest to be detected relative to SARS-CoV-2 would be what the device was designed for, relative to SARS-CoV-1. Until then, it appears to me the thing to do would be to re-arrange human resources from around the world, such as scientists and medical staff, give them hazardous materials training relative to SARS-CoV-2, and having them go to parts of the world most impacted at the moment: United States of America and Europe. Have them start working on treating people (relative to the U.S.A., I presume the American Medical Association would find a way to credential them to medically diagnose/treat), analyzing things, and figuring out how to bring down prevalence. Maybe even give them hazardous materials suits. Furthermore, it might be worthwhile to take those in military of whom have biological, chemical, etc. training [similar to a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Specialist (3)] and have them moving around to bring down prevalence. Furthermore, it appears to me that there is a significant issue that’s sprouted up as of late. The Food Drug and Administration (FDA) seems to have stopped various aspects of people requesting genotyping on themselves. It appears to me that it would be worthwhile for those of whom are high risk factor individuals to have genotyping done on themselves to examine whether or not they have ACE2 receptors, which is the binding receptor for SARS-CoV-2. I would think rather than continually getting checked up, people would want to use Southern blotting technique to check if they do or do not have ACE2 receptor expression, whereby an absence of such (I presume) means they would not be susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2. Sure, maybe genotyping wouldn’t necessarily be the best thing, though, so maybe actually people getting a tissue sample from their nose to check for expression of the ACE2 receptor would be best. Maybe not. Maybe there are people of whom don’t have ACE2 expressed in their nose-throat (nasal-oral system?) but have it expressed in the intenstinal tract (supposedly, ACE2 receptors exist in the intestinal tract and there’s evidence to suggest the virus may attach in the intestinal tract [4, 5] to infect a host). Regardless, as the FDA appears to have stopped people from allow companies to do genotyping/blotting-analysis on people of whom request such, then it appears the thing to do is that people need to learn to do (in that the Elizabeth Holmes’ technology cannot be up-and-running any time soon) is use various blotting techniques (such as Southern blotting) to analyze whether or not they have the ACE2 receptor. That would mean people would have to learn to do the laboratory techniques at home/etc. for a work-around of the FDA regulation. Another idea is have scientists sell people to kits and make really, really good instructional booklets/videos so that people can do their own blotting analysis. Another idea is an in-person salesperson of whom sells the blotting technology, sees if the person does the blotting technology correctly, and if there are problems, then buys the technology (say for 1.00 US dollar) back and to show how the technology is supposed to be used to do the blotting analyzes (and then sells back the equipment for 1.00 US dollar — hopefully people would be kind enough to do such a low sell as a work-around of the FDA situation). The primary people to target for analysis of having the ACE2 receptor would be those of whom are most susceptible at the time: High-risk individuals. I am not well-read on the presumed "significant correlating factors" * From there, figure out how to shelter (isolate from the virus) those individuals. I theorize that there would be a reduction over time in SARS-CoV-2 cases/deaths from there. So... "increased isolation (social distancing) of those with high risk factors over time" vs. "SARS-CoV-2 cases/deaths over time"? If someone wants to make a graph for it, please do. References (0) "Would throwing various members of the American populous into fallout shelters help alleviate SARS-CoV-2? - Engineering and Applied Science - Science Forums." Author: Dennis Francis Blewett (user: dennisfrancisblewett). Thread creation date: January 6th, 2022. <https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/38809-would-throwing-various-members-of-the-american-populous-into-fallout-shelters-help-alleviate-sars-cov-2/>. Accessed: January 18th, 2022. (1) “Theranos – Silicon Valley’s Greatest Disaster - YouTube.” Author: Dagogo Altraide; Channel: ColdFusion. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CccfnRpPtM>. Accessed: January 18th, 2022. (2) "United States Patent: 10130283.” Patent title: “Medical device for analyte monitoring and drug delivery.” Inventors: (1) Holmes, Elizabeth; (2) Roy, Shaunak; (3) Howard, John; (4) Wang, Chengwang. Assignee: Theranos, IP Company, LLC (Palo Alto, CA). Patent number: 10130283. Main site: <https://patft.uspto.gov/>. Accessed: January 18th, 2022. (3) “CBRN Specialist | goarmy.com.” <https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/career-match/support-logistics/safety-order-legal/74d-cbrn-specialist.html>. Accessed: January 18th, 2022. [4] "Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and Pathogenesis." Harrison, et. al. Dec. 2020. Trends in Immunology. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7556779/> Excerpt: "...Accordingly, gastrointestinal illness has been frequently reported in patients with COVID-19 [40,41], consistent with the recovery of SARS-CoV from stool samples of patients with SARS [42], suggesting a potential fecal–oral route of transmission for these two CoVs..." [5] "COVID-19 infection detected in deer in six Ohio locations: Scientists unsure if wild deer could be SARS-CoV-2 virus reservoir -- ScienceDaily." Authored: December 23, 2021. <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/12/211223113202.htm>. Accessed: January 18th, 2022. Excerpt: "...Research has shown that the virus is shed in human stool and detectable in wastewater..." Notes * I do not believe in that causality exists. As such, I use the term "significant correlating factors" rather than "significant contributing factors," which such term is a term I learned from a course in psychological statistics (I presume PSCH 343 in maybe the year of 2010) at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The concept of "significant contributing factors" is similar if not the same to the term "high risk factors."

No, it's about temporary placing people in shelters. A difference between incarceration (jail/prison) vs. the proposed nuclear fallout shelter option is that the jail/prisoner incarceration is a type of punishment that leads to an injury; in contrast, the fallout shelter would be like an all-expenses-paid, get-well clinic. Nonetheless, it appears to me the issue is more of a "last resort," so let's keep it in consideration in case things get exponentially bad much faster, which I doubt because of the new thread I'm thinking of creating here quite shortly.

It's not retarded because it is an alternative safe-guard in that vaccination is not a fool-proof measure, whereby history alleges that vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 has not been a fool-proof measure. The virus keeps adapting and evolving. Other safeguards have to be considered. In relation to the demographic of whom I think would best be placed in such fallouts first, I suggest those of whom would be the most susceptible to infection. What criteria define such persons, I'm not sure. However, I presume they have (at the least) the ACE2 receptor (binding site) for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Those of whom would be selected last for such fallout shelters would be those of whom are the least susceptible to infection. Furthermore, I've developed a concept of something I call "jail inversion." It comes from my studies of comparing and contrasting the punishment of probation versus incarceration. Presuming a sentence of probation is meant to inflict the same amount of pain and suffering onto an individual of whom has been sentenced with jail, then there would be no significant differences between probation and jail unless there was to be a difference in the length of either punishment. Consider a sentence of probation being handed to a defendant rather than jail. The defendant is to, however, experience the same amount of pain and suffering that would be suffered if the defendant had instead been incarcerated. Thus, somehow, in some way, the pain and suffering that would be experienced in "jail" has been "inverted" and instead becomes experienced during probation (the outside world, the world outside of jail). Thus, such experience would be an experience of "jail inversion." With fallout shelters, they would be a form of incarceration. However, it is presumed they would be more of a therapeutic incarceration that generates positive outcomes for the individual of whom has been incarcerated, like an all-expenses paid "get well clinic." Probation officers over-see the process of probation for presumed "jail inversion." Perhaps there are individuals of whom might oversee such "jail inversion" (perhaps better described as "get-well-clinic inversion") for fallout shelters, thus persons not needing to be placed in such in the first place. Collectively, at the maximum point of incarceration with all persons experiencing fallout shelters, it's presumed that the "ransom factor" (a term I learned from Black's Law Diction) to escape SARS-CoV-2 as a virus, will have been paid. Abolition of SARS-CoV-2 would require payment of a ransom factor. As "The individual" approaches "A universe without SARS-CoV-2" and "The individual" approaches "The truth of the matter," then SARS-CoV-2 approaches falsification/abolition/eradication (the ransom factor gets paid). @ JeffreysTubes8 Don't worry about having to post to prevent me from double posting or the like. If done for such, thank you; but such is not necessary, I think, as there is no rule against double (or more) posting (that I've seen) on this forum. @ all Update: Perhaps it would be better to list "A universe without SARS-CoV-2" as "an environment for the individual without SARS-CoV-2."

Regardless, it was nice that I did not have to engage in a double post, as a matter of rhetoric. So, I have an update: I spent some time thinking about this issue, and I consider there may a huge debate about the Contracts Dispute Act (Title 41 of U.S. Code?) and getting the accounting department of the United States Department of Education to somehow manage to see to it that billions of dollars pop-up for use by the United States government. My estimate was that it would require approximately 100 billion dollars to effectively use the nuclear fallout shelters to get rid of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States of America. Such a dollar amount would not be so bad, considering how much money has been put toward ridding SARS-CoV-2 in the United States of America so far. Nonetheless, money is still an issue. Thus, I think it would be wise for persons to develop a learning curve to acquire money while engaging in the use of nuclear fallout shelters. Attached is an image with two curves. One curve is accessing nuclear fallout shelters to place rounds of persons in over time. The other curve is the decrease in SARS-CoV-2 over time. Over time, persons would eventually develop a learning curve in order to increasingly get rid of SARS-CoV-2 while accessing nuclear fallout shelters. One issue is whether or not the homeless/low-income demographic is necessarily of the best to start placing in such nuclear fallout shelters to help decrease transmission. Perhaps it would be best to grab the demographic that is more prone to infection. I'm not sure. Epidemiologists might have a better grasp on such.

I am unable to decipher what you hope to relay in your message. In relation to my first post, I spent some more time thinking about it last night. So, what I started thinking was there are groups of individuals of the demographic of whom are more likely to be transmitters of SARS-CoV-2. Take those people (in however many rounds necessary), and throw them into the nuclear fall-out shelters for, say, two weeks. Then, let them out and bring in the next group of "most-likely-to-be-a-transmitter." I presume the pattern would lead to a quick decline in SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths over time in the United States of America. I presume that a Federal Freedom of Information Act request (one or more) might be used to check the availability of the nuclear fallout shelters and their accessibility. However, there would still be a need to stock-pile the nuclear fallout shelters with food, toiletries, and hygiene goods. I have been under the presumption that finances acquired from adequately dismissing debts over six years, relative to Federal student loans and the Contracts Disputes Act, would enable to Federal government of the United States of America to do sociological research on whom should go to a shelter, what would be needed for stay, doing psych evals on people and providing psychological conditioning (if necessary) to stay in such shelters [sociological research where applicable], and acquiring the materials for persons to be placed into such fallout shelters. Based on a reading of "Meat Production and Supply Chain Under COVID-19 Scenario: Current Trends and Future Prospects" (May 2021) by Ijaz, et. al., I've come to the presumption that low-income workers have been taking the jobs of people of whom have been transmitting SARS-CoV-2. As the homeless tend to be of the lowest-income workers around, I consider they've been taking jobs for low pay where others have not, which might make them to be more suspectible to being hosts and transmitters of SARS-CoV-2. As such, I presume that it would be worthwhile to place the homeless population into the nuclear fallout shelters. I suggest, however, sociological research into this, as I might be wrong. Also, I'd like to re-iterate an aspect of the cited material for emphasis on a point made in the original material: Let me help narrow that down: SARS-Cov-2 is pretty bad right now. Perhaps someone might qualify it as an attack by nature itself. Regardless, the situation is bad. Also, those nuclear fallout shelters seem to just be around with no one tapping into them as a resource. I suggest the things I've typed here be researched and discussion about the research and what I have typed occur.

I'm reading through this: STATE OF WISCONSIN CIVIL DEFENSE NEWS BULLETIN (FEBRUARY 1964) It argues the following: Well, I don't know how many government-funded fallout shelters are in existence, but perhaps there are many more these days (prior to the Office of Civil Defense being shut down). Perhaps the fallout shelters could save 100+ million lives. If so, I think it'd be within society's interest to the use the fallout shelters in an effort to bring down SARS-CoV-2 case count, deaths, etc.. Thoughts?

Here is what I've been thinking: Wikipedia has a "ignore all rules" statute. It also (currently) argues for a Terms of Service... But the Terms of Service has been more of an effort to prevent/reduce any possibility of liability from government prosecution, in my opinion. The "ignore all rules" statute, however, trumps the Terms of Service. That is my opinion on the matter. And, anyway, editing Wikipedia comes down to of whom may afford to edit Wikipedia, such as get on the Internet, have the resources to argue about what is and is not a good edit and then maintain such edit for the encyclopedia. "...Given a list of cities and their pairwise distances, the task is to find the shortest possible tour that visits each city exactly once. It is a special case of the Traveling purchaser problem..." - Quoted from December 7th, 2011 Wikipedia excerpt cited in earlier post in this thread. A key word to extract from that citing is the word "possible." Space-time/reality provides the only route available because the salesman does not have free will to travel any other route. In that any particular city is "visited" "exactly once" would be pre-determined by reality. Whether or not any particular salesperson would be visiting such city "exactly once" would either be or not be in the salesperson's worldline (1). As to VictorMedvil, I strangely found some energy analysis place in downtown Madison, Wisconsin. I stepped on the property for a moment (about two days ago), but I didn't find much enlightenment out of it. Reference: (1) From my studies of the theory of special relativity (Dixon Correctional Center, Internet, Einstein's authored works) and Egyptian philosophy (studied from Rockford Public Library in Rockford, Illinois -- Main branch).

Well, if the virus attacks ACE2 and such is in epithelial tissue, then a flea bite with virility would infect a person with SARS-CoV-2. See also: "Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and Pathogenesis." Harrison, et. al. Dec. 2020. Trends in Immunology. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7556779/>

So, I had a fair amount of time to myself in the year of 2020. During that time, I think I eventually figured out the solution to the traveling salesman problem. I eventually took some effort to jot it down on the Internet, but it was hushed. If I recall correctly, I learned about the problem from Wikipedia. Here is Wikipedia's version from December 7th, 2011. Here is my solution: (1) "The Solution to the Traveling Salesman Problem | Search Results | dennisfrancisblewett's Library | Zotero." Title: The Solution to the Traveling Salesman Problem. Author: Dennis Francis Blewett. Date of Zotero authorship: April 17th, 2021. Space-time provided me with an opportunity to develop some commentary. Thoughts? UPDATE (additional note): If considering all of reality to just be space-time, then the terms "predestination" and "pre-destination" as used in my solution are synonymous with the term "space-time." However, I have been under the presumption there are more dimensions than four dimensions to reality.

I hope to not go too far into this thread (other pressing matters), but I'll make a response. To re-phrase the rhetor's argument: The scientific method is bad because no scientist that I know of actually follows "this" prescription. The rhetor denies that any scientist ever engages in the scientific method. It seems to me that the rhetor argues a deconstructionist view, arguing no one can ever define any aspect of the methodology with any authority, so things fall apart (deconstruct). I don't agree with the rhetor's premise. Sure, things are an "epiphenomenon," whereby one might claim that there is never a "method" being performed. In a lot of ways, what occurs is an art. However, I don't think it's a fraudulent art or means to be a deceptive art. It means to be a way of analyzing reality and gathering "knowledge" about reality.

So, in about the past week or two, I've been reflecting on how something like the bubonic plague might pop-up with SARS-CoV-2 if fleas are able to host and/or transmit the disease. Presumptively, mice are able to host and transmit SARS-CoV-2 (1). Thoughts? (1) "Infection of wild-type mice by SARS-CoV-2 B.1.351 variant indicates a possible novel cross-species transmission route - PubMed." <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-021-00848-1> UPDATE: I just found this: source: Coronavirus in cat flea: findings and questions regarding COVID-19 | Parasites & Vectors | Full Text (biomedcentral.com) Well, if the spike protein for SARS-CoV is molecularly the same as the spike protein for SARS-CoV-2 (whereby it allows docking just like for SARS-CoV), then it may be deduced the answer is "yes." Such presumes that a cat flea could just as well end up on a mouse.

It is not possible to disobey the government/legal system because it is not possible for anyone to know any of the orders or rules of a government/legal system in order to obey them. If you were to argue for the position that people are conditioned through pain and suffering to believe or conform to some "norm" or expectation of behavior relative to some alleged language usage or "understanding" of some alleged "rule" or "social expectation," you would fail to realize that there are those of whom cannot be conditioned because of resistance or immunity to such conditioning. Anyway, I hope there are other scientists of whom will chime in. I would like to do other stuff than just focus on Elizabeth Holmes. I'm sure she appreciates any and all help. My current view is that her attorney has failed to notice how she is autistic and lacking social skills to project refutations that have been developed by the prosecution, the Wall Street Journal, and others. I saw the chemistry involved with the Edison; and it does the chemistry on a smaller scale. I'd like to see what research papers led Elizabeth Holmes to believe that she could do the blood tests she has alleged could be done with the Edison. Maybe she got them from the Journal of Nanotechnology or something. Unless she's brilliantly delusional, there was something in her scientific knowledge that led her to believe she could do the blood tests on a "nano-scale" with the Edison. Maybe the patent office has all of that information; maybe she kept that information tied to the patent as part of a trade secret. I've read stuff like her saying, "I won't talk about X, Y, or Z because it's a trade secret." She needs to figure out how to support the claims that her technology can do various blood tests, as advertised, and it would aid in her discussing the various research articles that led her to believe she could develop a technology (namely, the Edison) to carry out experiments with a small amount of blood. As to the video (link) I saw, she does a comparative analysis with blood work and it relates error in techniques. My presumption is that paper has the amount of blood used for the general technique and she discusses for the Edison how much blood she used in contrast to do the same experiment with the Edison, which would prove that a smaller volume of blood may be used to lead to a similar experimental result. If Elizabeth Holmes is not autistic, she's got a huge amount of intelligence and a severe lack of social skills. She's failing to grasp how to respond to the allegations and refute them. Her attorney is engaged in some kind of misconduct is my guess, whereby the attorney is failing to put out information as to how the Edison does what it has purported to be able to do. I get how a defense attorney might refuse to tell the public anything and only make counter-arguments to a prosecutor (if but also judge in a chambers). However, the absence of such refutations in public seem to be making Elizabeth Holmes look like a con-artist. My attorney, for my felony case, managed to get things knocked down to like 6-months (I think) vs. insanity (as the plea deal). I went to trial. Looking back, if I could have, I would have told him to take all communications him and I had and present ALL things to the jury as evidence to argue against the prosecution. It would have been like a "checks-and-balances" against my attorney. My attorney engaged in misconduct (what exactly and how, I'm not sure. I don't know what the communications between my attorney and the prosecuting attorney were besides him coming back and saying what plea deals changed). I had communicated with my attorney about necessary and sufficient criteria and issues in epistemology with knowledge (I didn't know someone to be a peace officer nor anything to be a gun). I don't want this thread de-railing into what I dealt with, though. I have given an example of how an attorney might fail to properly represent a client, which is at the least, what is going on in the Elizabeth Holmes case.

I would like to see the information related to your ban. Sockpuppeting, what I think it really is, is being a mental health case and your person dissociating into two identities with the two identities talking to each other. Generally (traditionally), people consider yourself to be "knowingly" using two accounts and using both accounts to hold a conversation on the Internet, such as a post in a thread on a forum. If you have a banned account, then it's not possible for that account to communicate with the other account while on the forum. Maybe you don't get the metaphorical idea behind sockpuppeting. Watch some videos on people putting socks on their hands for ventriloquism acts. That's the general idea. The socks are meant as puppets rather than wooden puppets, etc.. It reminds me of this one MTV show (The Sifl and Olly Show, from what I'm reviewing of Wikipedia on today's date) from way back in the 1990s that I used to watch: link. I reason well enough your ban was wrongful. The staff over there have been getting ignorant. Besides that, kudos for taking a serious interest in the philosophy of science. There was a thread on scienceforums.net that questioned what makes someone a good scientist. In my opinion, what makes someone a good scientist is use of the scientific method, for the scientific method is the foundation for scientific investigation.

EDITS AS OF OCTOBER 31ST, 2021: 1) Added reference about commerical analyzers 2) Added references as to Dow Jones and Wall Street Journal & Dow Jones and Google. 3) I am currently fixing the links to provide the sources that I have referenced. I believe I had put effort toward seeing that individuals could access the sources that I referenced through Zotero, but perhaps Zotero has recently changed something about its servers to prevent sharing of research materials. 4) Fixed links. Let me know if there is an issue. Hello, I had put forward effort on Scienceforums.net to discuss the Elizabeth Holmes case. There was backlash and members did not like me critiquing the member of whom I considered was working on de-railing the thread. I never prevented anyone from participating in the thread. I was wrongfully banned and staff refuses to lift the ban. Regardless, I think effort needs to be put on the Elizabeth Holmes case. Elizabeth Holmes managed to craft a very powerful piece of technology, namely the Edison. I think it may have significant applicability in helping society overcome SAR-CoV-2. I think it would be unfortunate for an innocent woman to go to prison. The Edison does chemistry but on a smaller scale. The user, CharonY, managed to give a critique, and I spent time analyzing the critique. Part of my analysis: Let's say I'm a laboratory scientist working with some piece of equipment. Let's say I get data that says the equipment is bad. Later on, someone asks my opinion about the data that the equipment develops, and let's say I report to the person that the equipment generates bad data. Here is a question: How good is my interpretation of the data relative to the piece of equipment? Maybe the hypothetical interpretation was bad, thus experimenter error rather than equipment error occurred. From a quick web search, I am reminded of the term "experimental error" from source. Ok, so let's presume that I had mis-interpreted the data. Let's hypothesize the equipment, however, is still good. How do you test for that and examine that? I've read various articles (1), (2), (3,), (4) [articles readable as Zotero attachments (research and information related)] related to the Edison and what Theranos was doing. It appears that Elizabeth Holmes is failing to let it be known the efficiency of her equipment relative to doing blood tests. She is not fit to stand trial. However, she, like many other criminal defendants, is being moved through the system. Furthermore, I am not being given information on what the alleged "commercial analyzers" (5) are that were allegedly being used in place of Theranos scientific equipment, presumptively the Edison. I have read that venous draws rather than blood-taking equipment made by Theranos was being used. Maybe that's the referenced "commerical analyzers" that was discussed by some source, for which I do not recall at the moment. source: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126000-on-the-case-of-elizabeth-holmes/?do=findComment&comment=1189661 My response: All sound judgments are by persons of whom have authority, whereby such authority is established through having expertise that is infallible: Thus, the difference between an "actual" authority vs. some character with alleged authority. I had already discussed Illinois Rules of Evidence in relation to how something is alleged to be evidence by the court (Rule 104, which is applicable on the Federal level, which is what Elizabeth Holmes is dealing with). And TheVat ought to have figured out that an individual of whom does not have infallibility is unable to determine whether or not alleged evidence is "solid" because such individual cannot maintain such alleged evidence as "solid" evidence through the individual's center of gravity. I think a reading of the onlinephilosophyclub.com thread would have aided in this being deduced by TheVat. I think there was enough discussion about authority and infallibility, whereby I considered TheVat to be working on de-railing my thread and instead be arguing something along the lines of, "OBEY! OBEY! ACCEPT THE LEGAL SYSTEM AS YOUR MASTER! OBEY!" Also, as a further edit to this post, I'd like to mention that I noticed that Dow Jones (6) owns The Wall Street Journal. Google is connected to Dow Jones through Google Cloud (7). If there is information warfare involved, which I suspect there is, it might explain why people are having difficulty figuring out how and why Elizabeth Holmes is not guilty. It seems to me that Elizabeth Holmes is failing to refute false claims against her, thus attorney misconduct (her attorney) is doing a poor job. And as one more additional edit, it seems to me that the Edison being available to the public for blood testing would enable people to analyze whether or not they have antibodies developed to SARS-CoV-2, thus they've developed an immunity to one or more strains of SARS-CoV-2. References (provided for research and informational purposes): (1) "A Prized Startup's Struggles --- Silicon Valley lab Theranos is valued at $9 billion but isn't using its technology for all the tests it offers." Wall Street Journal. <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/a-prized-startups-struggles.pdf> Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/VWWECXB8/items/WM629U27/attachment/6WSZ59U3/collection (2) "Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology; Silicon Valley lab, led by Elizabeth Holmes, is valued at $9 billion but isn't using its technology for all the tests it offers" Wall Street Journal. <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/hot-startup-theranos-has-struggled-with-its.pdf> Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/VWWECXB8/items/DTK3K69V/attachment/CSEAEUBX/collection (3) "Controversial $9 billion health startup Theranos fires back again at the scathing WSJ report that questioned its technology" Business Insider. <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/controversial-9-billion-health-startup-theranos-fires-back-again.pdf> Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/XEC9DIC2/items/3XEU8ZN9/attachment/DS5ZPGJS/collection (4) "The Theranos controversy, explained" <https://www.vox.com/2015/10/20/9576501/theranos-elizabeth-holmes> https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/XEC9DIC2/items/KCG7M94S/attachment/JP8EHBVI/collection (5) "Ask WSJ: Theranos and the Trial of Elizabeth Holmes" <https://www.wsj.com/live-qa/ask-wsj-theranos-and-the-trial-of-elizabeth-holmes/EB0D6C2D-5D7A-4DA0-BAB7-54A11840F864>. (6) "Publication Details For 'Wall Street Journal (Online)'" Publications: JN "Wall Street Journal (Online)": EBSCOhost <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/publications_-jn-_wall-street-journal-online__-ebscohost.pdf> (Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/G4AD4MM9/items/DXXMDD3J/attachment/9BZU784B/collection) (7) "Search - is google connected to dow jones" Microsoft Bing. <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/search-is-google-connected-to-dow-jones.pdf> (Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/G4AD4MM9/items/D6EBNXD6/attachment/3EX6RPJB/collection)