In business and in investments I use a strategy called "defend the castle.". No idea if that is the right term for it, but it's what I've called it for years.

The basic concept is when I have an idea for business or an investment, after I finish developing my rational for why it WILL work, I approach it from the other side and develop a thesis of why it won't work. In the case of CYDY we get some help from certain folks on certain boards.

Nevertheless, as I find these chinks in the armor, I try to prove/disprove them and if not possible to prove/disprove, I employ a comparative analysis of plausible explanations.

I've been thinking about DR Patterson's paper, as it is frequently cited by doubters. (Of note please pay attention to how carefully they select items that have been debated without any clear resolution).

We have heard explanations that range from "Big ideas require big proof," to "the paper was rejected.". While I believe that the most likely explanation is that it genuinely takes time to get through the peer review process, one plausible explanation that I haven't seen is perhaps the government is holding publication so as to not alert the public of a viable treatment before it is approved and/or ready for distribution.

I woke up thinking about this, so I thought I'd share.