Congratulations David. I get more out your writing today than anything in the lancet or Cochrane review in recent times. Keep up the great pioneering work!!!
Thank you, Gary—that means a great deal. We’re in a time when independent observation and pattern recognition are more valuable than ever. I’m committed to continuing this work, and I truly appreciate your encouragement along the way!
Could also use something as such to evaluate Environmental Support "Advocacy" Platforms that have been proven to be anything but over the years > I've always believed a significant detriment to meaningful progress has been the lack of support shown from many of the more "High Visible" / popular Platforms > seems We've been surrounded by Psyops ... those who pretend to be on the right side of History yet behind the scenes quietly to what they can to thwart progress > stands to reason I suppose considering how high the stakes are.
You’ve nailed something important there. Much of the perceived support landscape has been co-opted or diluted—leaving real work to be done quietly and often alone. The patterns are clearer now, and the stakes—as you say—are higher than most realize. Thank you for putting it so plainly.
Ave David Nixon - (using the Latin meaning). You're well out in front for integrity and dedication to truth, and deserve the leadership you're taking in this role. A beacon for direction in moral principle and anchor for scientific trust. Go well good man.
Thank you deeply. That Latin sense—“hail” as both recognition and encouragement—means a lot. We walk forward not alone, but with others who still listen, still measure, still care. Go well too.
A timely, needed and brilliant idea. I was just telling a friend yesterday my observation that I could see physicians are bored out of their minds when I went to appointments the past few years and during my recent annual check-up (which I hadn’t been to for over five years). They sit there, ask a few perfunctory questions then pull out a prescription pad. I thank them for the offer but leave without it. They are no longer able to be real doctors and get to the root of any issues. It’s ask, write then on to the next body in the factory line. It was the first time I felt and expressed sympathy for these people, short-lived when I think about their refusal to stand up for their profession … more importantly, for their patients when it really matters, as in the case of mRNA shots or multiple injections in vulnerable children. To top it off, my last visit with a new GP for my annual told me his time was short as “it was a business after all.”
Claudia — your story hits hard. That image of the physician on the “factory line” is painfully accurate. It’s not just burnout — it’s the dismantling of care into transaction. And when refusal to prescribe becomes subversion, we know how far we've drifted. Thank you for articulating this so clearly
Happens here too (Dominion of Canada)… Robots with the empathy of a cooked macaroni, 5-10 mins. timed appointments, eager to give pills to either shut down your painful body or your anxious mind and get rid of you, but close to inquisition when trying to avoid the referral to a specialist (waiting list of 2 years or more…). Under these circumstances, who want to consult unless it’s an emergency?
Len — I deeply appreciate that, especially coming from someone who’s seen both sides of this transformation. It’s not about rebellion for its own sake — it’s about preserving the space where real science, and real healing, can still happen.
if a doctor were to say, trust me I am a doctor, I would be running out the door. When I had a strange reaction after taking some prescription, I told the doc what I found. She said, that is impossible, left, and came back after 10 minutes and took me off the meds LOL. She did not say I was right of course, but it was quite obvious. I took myself off the second prescription, because I bought the means to measure and found I do not need to take pills. Now I got to find a way to take myself off AT&T !
Science nowadays has become follow the money. We should all refuse to take meds produced by the bigpharma!
Ingrid — what a sharp, lived example of why decentralizing medical authority is no longer optional. When direct observation conflicts with doctrine, we must trust the data in front of us — especially when our bodies are the evidence. And yes: follow the money still explains more than most peer-reviewed studies.
Perfectly said, John. Peer review nearly burned Galileo, and today it just buries you in silence. The method hasn’t failed — the institutions have. Real scientists walk alone because the path is real.
Great questions, Anita. Construction must be transparent, open-source, and accountable — or we risk repeating the same institutional traps. As for staying current: the community itself must hold that responsibility, not a gatekeeping board. Truth-seeking has to scale horizontally, not hierarchically.
Grateful for your words. The map’s only as useful as those who can read its distortions—and still choose the path of clarity. Blessings to you as well, Brother.
Charlie, absolutely — it’s that autopilot speech pattern that reveals just how deeply external scripts can run. Naming it as ‘mind control’ might seem bold to some, but it’s accurate. We’ve normalized programmed response under the guise of consensus.
That is really a great way to avoid conflict of interest and put science in a proactive light you are a true pioneer , thanks again David I will see you Sunday ;)Cheers
Thanks Johnny — really appreciate that. Steering clear of institutional conflicts is the only way we can let real science breathe again. See you Sunday — keen to keep building this together.
The precursors of all fields have very often worked alone, being ostracized by their peers, ridiculed... until the facts prove that they were right.
You are the fish that has the courage and determination to walk out of a sea full of nonsense. Hat off!
Kind regards.
P.S. Was the poster on comments from science publishers I’ve sent to you previously through Chat a premonition? It would be more than appropriate to join it to this second article. :))
That image struck home—thank you. I’ve always felt that truth requires not just observation, but motion. We swim against tides not for defiance, but for coherence.
(P.S. Yes, I remember the poster! This article may well be its home. I’ll revisit it.)
Good for you for not bowing to old ways of doing things that have keep us stuck! I like the AVE criteria you came up with. It's vey helpful these days, when it can be so hard to tell where people are really coming from.
I'm virtually standing up in support of the scientific method that has been established over the past 400 years (i.e., long before technocracy came to town). Since covid, some of the research papers I've read by independent scientists have been embarrassingly bad.
We shoot ourselves in the face when we publish bad science in support of a good cause. More often than not, bad science is worse than no science.
Case in point: the 2024 study by Lee and Broudy, whose claims of EMF responsiveness in the Pfizer and Moderna c-19 injectables are rebutted by their very own findings.
Please, everyone, stand up for good science. Our credibility -- i.e., our ability to convince those who don't yet know -- and, at the risk of hyperbole, perhaps our very survival depends on it.
Christine — thanks for raising this, and I respect the spirit behind your comment. But I must push back on one core point:
Lee and Broudy’s 2024 paper does not refute itself — and I say this as someone who has directly replicated their key finding.
In my own microscopy work, I’ve observed crystal formation from pharmaceutical samples (including lignocaine) that radically accelerates and complexifies when exposed to nearby EMF sources — including something as simple as fast-charging a mobile phone near the microscope. Structures became geometrically stable, sharply defined, and visibly activated — changes that did not occur without the field present.
What Lee and Broudy documented with EMF exposure and self-assembly is not an error. It’s an early signal of a broader phenomenon. One that I, and others, are seeing repeatedly.
I agree: we must defend the scientific method. But that means looking clearly at what is emerging, even when it’s messy or not yet compositional. Especially when institutions dismiss it outright.
Credibility, as invoked by legacy systems, is already compromised. If we wait for permission from captured journals to acknowledge these signals, we’re not protecting science — we’re delaying it.
Lee and Broudy did what good scientists do under pressure: they observed, documented, and reported. And they were right to do so.
Thanks, David, but indeed they did not prove their claims.
I wrote a brief commentary on this very point (as it relates to EMF responsiveness). I intended for it to be published in the same journal (International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research). But in the process it became patently clear that the editor-in-chief and whoever on the editorial board peer-reviewed and edited the Lee-Broudy paper have no idea of the magnitude of the problem they are contributing to by publishing such shoddy science.
In the finish, I published it as a preprint on ResearchGate. Here is a link to the PDF on my website:
I thought briefly about submitting it to your new journal, but I could find no way of doing so.
And lest anyone accuse me of being in "camp 2" or whichever the cuckoos in the nest are said to belong, I see the 3-camps schema differently: the technocrats are in one camp, the opposition (among which I count myself) is in another, and the vast majority of humanity is unknowing and unknowingly in the middle.
It is to those in the middle, who have not yet woken up to what is happening, that we must appeal. Bad science works against us, however good the intentions of the people who conducted, reviewed, edited, and published it.
Christine — thanks for engaging so deeply. I’ve now read your full critique. While we both care about scientific integrity, we differ sharply on what that means in the current context.
Lee and Broudy never claimed to “prove” EMF responsiveness — they documented it. I’ve since independently replicated similar EMF-induced crystallization using plain lignocaine and dental anaesthetics. These aren’t isolated events. They’re part of a broader pattern we can’t afford to ignore.
In a captured scientific environment, observational integrity matters more than format. Demanding institutional proof before acknowledging real phenomena is not caution — it’s delay. This moment calls for collaborative exploration, not hierarchical enforcement.
I remain open to publishing thoughtful critique — and equally committed to defending the work of independent researchers doing vital, under-resourced science in real time.
No, David, they did not document it. They documented inconsistent changes - inconsistent between the two products (Pfizer, Moderna) and inconsistent between the two EMF sources (mobile/cell phone on wireless charger, external hard drive) - and they failed to consider or account for other explanations for their observations, including confounding factors.
They very clearly did claim EMF responsiveness of these injectable products, and their study has been cited as proving such a phenomenon multiple times since.
This paper has created a credibility problem for every person who has cited it as evidence for EMF responsiveness in these injectables, which is how I came to know about its existence (someone cited it as proof that these microassemblies are EMF responsive).
They may very well be EMF responsive. Your own work strongly suggests that they would be -- else why all that elaborate micro-electronic circuitry?!
However, the Lee-Broudy study does not demonstrate it. What they demonstrated is poor scientific methods leading to unreliable conclusions.
Thanks, Christine — I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I understand your concerns around consistency and interpretation. But from where I stand, Lee and Broudy observed something real — even if imperfectly documented — and that signal has since been echoed in other settings, including my own lab. That’s enough to warrant attention, not dismissal.
This space is evolving fast, and I welcome continued scrutiny — but I’ll continue to support researchers who are willing to look, even when conditions aren’t ideal.
Willing to bend their data to fit the narrative, no!
Willing to cherry-pick their own findings to fit the narrative, no!!
That's the sort of thing we accuse captured scientists and publications of doing. We must be above such shoddy practices.
This study was so poorly designed, conducted, and reported that it is simply not credible. Were I to not be 'in the know', I would dismiss any and all claims of microassemblies and EMF responsiveness as complete and utter nonsense, based on this paper. That's how bad it is.
It troubles me greatly that the problems with this paper were - and continue to be - overlooked by the editor-in-chief, the peer-reviewers, the editor(s), and so many readers who should know better.
I am sure that, at some point, someone or some group will confirm that these microassemblies are EMF-responsive and will be able to answer the other questions I raised in my concluding paragraphs: in what way, to what extent, under what conditions, and to what end?
The Lee-Broudy paper answers none of those questions. They didn't even conclusively show that the microassemblies they documented are EMF-responsive.
Congratulations David. I get more out your writing today than anything in the lancet or Cochrane review in recent times. Keep up the great pioneering work!!!
Thank you, Gary—that means a great deal. We’re in a time when independent observation and pattern recognition are more valuable than ever. I’m committed to continuing this work, and I truly appreciate your encouragement along the way!
Could also use something as such to evaluate Environmental Support "Advocacy" Platforms that have been proven to be anything but over the years > I've always believed a significant detriment to meaningful progress has been the lack of support shown from many of the more "High Visible" / popular Platforms > seems We've been surrounded by Psyops ... those who pretend to be on the right side of History yet behind the scenes quietly to what they can to thwart progress > stands to reason I suppose considering how high the stakes are.
You’ve nailed something important there. Much of the perceived support landscape has been co-opted or diluted—leaving real work to be done quietly and often alone. The patterns are clearer now, and the stakes—as you say—are higher than most realize. Thank you for putting it so plainly.
Brilliant. As usual.
Many thanks for your pioneering and your incredible intellect.
Appreciate your steady encouragement. It’s the quiet reinforcement like this that keeps the work both grounded and lit.
Ave David Nixon - (using the Latin meaning). You're well out in front for integrity and dedication to truth, and deserve the leadership you're taking in this role. A beacon for direction in moral principle and anchor for scientific trust. Go well good man.
Thank you deeply. That Latin sense—“hail” as both recognition and encouragement—means a lot. We walk forward not alone, but with others who still listen, still measure, still care. Go well too.
A timely, needed and brilliant idea. I was just telling a friend yesterday my observation that I could see physicians are bored out of their minds when I went to appointments the past few years and during my recent annual check-up (which I hadn’t been to for over five years). They sit there, ask a few perfunctory questions then pull out a prescription pad. I thank them for the offer but leave without it. They are no longer able to be real doctors and get to the root of any issues. It’s ask, write then on to the next body in the factory line. It was the first time I felt and expressed sympathy for these people, short-lived when I think about their refusal to stand up for their profession … more importantly, for their patients when it really matters, as in the case of mRNA shots or multiple injections in vulnerable children. To top it off, my last visit with a new GP for my annual told me his time was short as “it was a business after all.”
Claudia — your story hits hard. That image of the physician on the “factory line” is painfully accurate. It’s not just burnout — it’s the dismantling of care into transaction. And when refusal to prescribe becomes subversion, we know how far we've drifted. Thank you for articulating this so clearly
Happens here too (Dominion of Canada)… Robots with the empathy of a cooked macaroni, 5-10 mins. timed appointments, eager to give pills to either shut down your painful body or your anxious mind and get rid of you, but close to inquisition when trying to avoid the referral to a specialist (waiting list of 2 years or more…). Under these circumstances, who want to consult unless it’s an emergency?
Love this framework. This is why you are a scientist and a thought leader!
Len — I deeply appreciate that, especially coming from someone who’s seen both sides of this transformation. It’s not about rebellion for its own sake — it’s about preserving the space where real science, and real healing, can still happen.
if a doctor were to say, trust me I am a doctor, I would be running out the door. When I had a strange reaction after taking some prescription, I told the doc what I found. She said, that is impossible, left, and came back after 10 minutes and took me off the meds LOL. She did not say I was right of course, but it was quite obvious. I took myself off the second prescription, because I bought the means to measure and found I do not need to take pills. Now I got to find a way to take myself off AT&T !
Science nowadays has become follow the money. We should all refuse to take meds produced by the bigpharma!
Ingrid — what a sharp, lived example of why decentralizing medical authority is no longer optional. When direct observation conflicts with doctrine, we must trust the data in front of us — especially when our bodies are the evidence. And yes: follow the money still explains more than most peer-reviewed studies.
The true scientists have always walked alone. Galileo nearly got peer-reviewed at the stake.
Perfectly said, John. Peer review nearly burned Galileo, and today it just buries you in silence. The method hasn’t failed — the institutions have. Real scientists walk alone because the path is real.
Huge job, who would be doing the construction would be the first question to avoid any bias of course? And next the question of keeping up to date?
Great questions, Anita. Construction must be transparent, open-source, and accountable — or we risk repeating the same institutional traps. As for staying current: the community itself must hold that responsibility, not a gatekeeping board. Truth-seeking has to scale horizontally, not hierarchically.
I like it.
Thank you, Wendy. Sometimes that’s all it takes. I’m glad it resonated.
Thank you for this nice map that may help following the truth in the distorted jungle of science.
Blessings to you, Brother❣️
Grateful for your words. The map’s only as useful as those who can read its distortions—and still choose the path of clarity. Blessings to you as well, Brother.
I keep mentioning mind control.
Why?
Simply asking if the response or thought are coming from myself as organic thinking.
IMO most humans are parrots.
Virus is a perfect example!
Most don’t give a thought to what they say!
Words matter. Statements matter!
This mind control is pervasive…
Charlie, absolutely — it’s that autopilot speech pattern that reveals just how deeply external scripts can run. Naming it as ‘mind control’ might seem bold to some, but it’s accurate. We’ve normalized programmed response under the guise of consensus.
That is really a great way to avoid conflict of interest and put science in a proactive light you are a true pioneer , thanks again David I will see you Sunday ;)Cheers
Thanks Johnny — really appreciate that. Steering clear of institutional conflicts is the only way we can let real science breathe again. See you Sunday — keen to keep building this together.
Hello David!
The precursors of all fields have very often worked alone, being ostracized by their peers, ridiculed... until the facts prove that they were right.
You are the fish that has the courage and determination to walk out of a sea full of nonsense. Hat off!
Kind regards.
P.S. Was the poster on comments from science publishers I’ve sent to you previously through Chat a premonition? It would be more than appropriate to join it to this second article. :))
That image struck home—thank you. I’ve always felt that truth requires not just observation, but motion. We swim against tides not for defiance, but for coherence.
(P.S. Yes, I remember the poster! This article may well be its home. I’ll revisit it.)
Good for you for not bowing to old ways of doing things that have keep us stuck! I like the AVE criteria you came up with. It's vey helpful these days, when it can be so hard to tell where people are really coming from.
I'm virtually standing up in support of the scientific method that has been established over the past 400 years (i.e., long before technocracy came to town). Since covid, some of the research papers I've read by independent scientists have been embarrassingly bad.
We shoot ourselves in the face when we publish bad science in support of a good cause. More often than not, bad science is worse than no science.
Case in point: the 2024 study by Lee and Broudy, whose claims of EMF responsiveness in the Pfizer and Moderna c-19 injectables are rebutted by their very own findings.
Please, everyone, stand up for good science. Our credibility -- i.e., our ability to convince those who don't yet know -- and, at the risk of hyperbole, perhaps our very survival depends on it.
Christine — thanks for raising this, and I respect the spirit behind your comment. But I must push back on one core point:
Lee and Broudy’s 2024 paper does not refute itself — and I say this as someone who has directly replicated their key finding.
In my own microscopy work, I’ve observed crystal formation from pharmaceutical samples (including lignocaine) that radically accelerates and complexifies when exposed to nearby EMF sources — including something as simple as fast-charging a mobile phone near the microscope. Structures became geometrically stable, sharply defined, and visibly activated — changes that did not occur without the field present.
What Lee and Broudy documented with EMF exposure and self-assembly is not an error. It’s an early signal of a broader phenomenon. One that I, and others, are seeing repeatedly.
I agree: we must defend the scientific method. But that means looking clearly at what is emerging, even when it’s messy or not yet compositional. Especially when institutions dismiss it outright.
Credibility, as invoked by legacy systems, is already compromised. If we wait for permission from captured journals to acknowledge these signals, we’re not protecting science — we’re delaying it.
Lee and Broudy did what good scientists do under pressure: they observed, documented, and reported. And they were right to do so.
Thanks, David, but indeed they did not prove their claims.
I wrote a brief commentary on this very point (as it relates to EMF responsiveness). I intended for it to be published in the same journal (International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research). But in the process it became patently clear that the editor-in-chief and whoever on the editorial board peer-reviewed and edited the Lee-Broudy paper have no idea of the magnitude of the problem they are contributing to by publishing such shoddy science.
In the finish, I published it as a preprint on ResearchGate. Here is a link to the PDF on my website:
http://www.animavet.com.au/King%20C%20Comment%2023Apr25.pdf
(the RG link is way too long to post here)
I thought briefly about submitting it to your new journal, but I could find no way of doing so.
And lest anyone accuse me of being in "camp 2" or whichever the cuckoos in the nest are said to belong, I see the 3-camps schema differently: the technocrats are in one camp, the opposition (among which I count myself) is in another, and the vast majority of humanity is unknowing and unknowingly in the middle.
It is to those in the middle, who have not yet woken up to what is happening, that we must appeal. Bad science works against us, however good the intentions of the people who conducted, reviewed, edited, and published it.
Christine — thanks for engaging so deeply. I’ve now read your full critique. While we both care about scientific integrity, we differ sharply on what that means in the current context.
Lee and Broudy never claimed to “prove” EMF responsiveness — they documented it. I’ve since independently replicated similar EMF-induced crystallization using plain lignocaine and dental anaesthetics. These aren’t isolated events. They’re part of a broader pattern we can’t afford to ignore.
In a captured scientific environment, observational integrity matters more than format. Demanding institutional proof before acknowledging real phenomena is not caution — it’s delay. This moment calls for collaborative exploration, not hierarchical enforcement.
I remain open to publishing thoughtful critique — and equally committed to defending the work of independent researchers doing vital, under-resourced science in real time.
No, David, they did not document it. They documented inconsistent changes - inconsistent between the two products (Pfizer, Moderna) and inconsistent between the two EMF sources (mobile/cell phone on wireless charger, external hard drive) - and they failed to consider or account for other explanations for their observations, including confounding factors.
They very clearly did claim EMF responsiveness of these injectable products, and their study has been cited as proving such a phenomenon multiple times since.
This paper has created a credibility problem for every person who has cited it as evidence for EMF responsiveness in these injectables, which is how I came to know about its existence (someone cited it as proof that these microassemblies are EMF responsive).
They may very well be EMF responsive. Your own work strongly suggests that they would be -- else why all that elaborate micro-electronic circuitry?!
However, the Lee-Broudy study does not demonstrate it. What they demonstrated is poor scientific methods leading to unreliable conclusions.
Thanks, Christine — I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I understand your concerns around consistency and interpretation. But from where I stand, Lee and Broudy observed something real — even if imperfectly documented — and that signal has since been echoed in other settings, including my own lab. That’s enough to warrant attention, not dismissal.
This space is evolving fast, and I welcome continued scrutiny — but I’ll continue to support researchers who are willing to look, even when conditions aren’t ideal.
Willing to look, yes; excellent!
Willing to bend their data to fit the narrative, no!
Willing to cherry-pick their own findings to fit the narrative, no!!
That's the sort of thing we accuse captured scientists and publications of doing. We must be above such shoddy practices.
This study was so poorly designed, conducted, and reported that it is simply not credible. Were I to not be 'in the know', I would dismiss any and all claims of microassemblies and EMF responsiveness as complete and utter nonsense, based on this paper. That's how bad it is.
It troubles me greatly that the problems with this paper were - and continue to be - overlooked by the editor-in-chief, the peer-reviewers, the editor(s), and so many readers who should know better.
I am sure that, at some point, someone or some group will confirm that these microassemblies are EMF-responsive and will be able to answer the other questions I raised in my concluding paragraphs: in what way, to what extent, under what conditions, and to what end?
The Lee-Broudy paper answers none of those questions. They didn't even conclusively show that the microassemblies they documented are EMF-responsive.
If you cannot see that, then I despair.
Over and out.