Just throwing this up so everyone is aware:

I may take much longer to respond than is usual. My wife Kylee is 36 weeks prego, we’re prepping to move houses in a couple months, I’m lead planner for confluenceevent.com happening in May, and we’re about about to launch our new platform at thewayfwrd.com.

Please be gracious with my delayed responses. If you have my number, please double text me if it’s urgent.

Important Epistemological, Scientific, Philosophical, and Legal Questions:

Before claiming that X causes Y, is it necessary to first establish that X exists?

If X is related to a scientific claim, by what standard is X confirmed to exist and to cause Y?

And after first proving that X even exists in the first place — which is the essential first step, is it not also essential to clearly demonstrate that X actually causes Y?

If a government enacts laws, codes, acts, or statutes around X and then coerces or threatens individuals into compliance based on what X allegedly does, must it first demonstrate that X exists?

If health experts recommend — or even mandate —treatments, medications, or injections based on the alleged effects of X, is it necessary to first prove that X exists?

If X has not been confirmed to exist or to cause Y according to that standard alluded to above, is it not imperative to question and challenge its legitimacy?

Does it matter that “the overwhelming majority of experts believe that X exists and causes Y” if X has not been confirmed to exist or to cause Y according to that standard?

If no one has formulated a 100% perfect explanation for what does cause Y, does that have any bearing on the fact that X has not been proven to exist or to cause Y?

Does it make sense to accept the foundational assumption that X exists and causes Y, despite failing to validate that claim according to the established standard, and then focus only on scrutinizing the additional claims built upon that unproven assumption?

Does it matter that, because the overwhelming majority of people have been conditioned to believe that X exists and causes Y, anyone who highlights the lack of evidence for X’s existence and causal link to Y may be perceived as “crazy” by the majority?

on with beth martens in 10!: https://kingheros.bethmartens.com/blog/104666-alec-zeck-truth-at-all-cost