I am having difficulty understanding what kind of 'honeypot' you are trying to create on your Twitter profile. I'm sure the readers would appreciate if you would explain what you mean here.

It would also be interesting to understand why you posted about VEHMT, since even if it is a strange 'in joke' that only your personal friends understand, it's probably not the best signal to be presenting the world of investors who are looking for a Hive 'team' to assess before investing and are left mostly only with top 20 witnesses. There's a reason why most top 20 witnesses don't post or say much and I presume it is partially because they don't want to generate negative press for themselves or Hive.

I'm not sure if you are referring to me, Kenny or both of us as 'pool milking nutcases' - but since it's pretty clear that neither of us posts excessively or breaks any rules - with many accounts posting as much or more than we do, regularly getting paid way more than we ever have done, but yet not ever getting downvoted - your claim seems somewhat unfounded. 'Nutcases' is subjective and I do prefer to try to stick to what can be evidenced when it comes to scientific conversations or health topics that science tries to weigh in on (especially where public policy is being set and lives affected).

Ad hominem attack has never been part of the scientific method.

I have had virtually all my posts zeroed by Curangel Since October 2020 and the only comment I have received is 'You don't know shit about science' (from yourself). Since I have directly asked for you guys to provide some comments on what exactly about the scientific nature of my posts it is that you reject, yet you have not even attempted to do so - it sure looks to most people like you don't have any substance to backup your claim and are acting based on something other than what you project through your surface level words.

I specifically said that if you guys can show me where I have significantly been wrong on COVID or even dangerous, then I will never post on COVID again - yet you didn't even try to and instead waste all your downvote credit on something that you could end simply by proving you are right with real world insights.

This suggests a lack of integrity and honesty on your part. The maths tells a story and the scientific method is intended to provide a way of addressing the debate without the need for any malicious actions or anti-social behaviours (including attempts to suppress the spread of information). It is quite sad to be accused of being unscientific when my actions are massively closer to the honourable scientific process than Curangel's has been.