If there's a possibility that begging the question

You are begging the question.  You appear to claim that you can determine that X implies Y when X possesses attribute Z.  When asked how you know that X possessing Z -> Y your only answer so far is that you have assumed that some X possessing Z implies Y.

So in other words you really don't have an argument.

Bottom line= one hundred thousand potential side-effects in total next year vs 90000 this year just for x-treatment

OU is exceptionally easy for scientists and for children to validate as I've shown elsewhere on this website.OU is not easy to shove into public domains as it incurs loss of valuable I.P.

Who in their right mind would want to validate ou to public @sarkeizen? What's in it for them?your comparrisons of ip holders to everybody else is pointless.

 Quote from sarkeizn:
'Same thing for any technological advances.  If you actually read science journals (and not just pretend to and then regurgitate titles which you claim support your theories) you would see an amazingly wide range of ideas.  For example time machines have been published in the speculative "D"  branch of the famous physics journal: Physical Review.'

End quote

I've seen some good shit in those journals.doesn't mean anybody will take it seriously eg cold fusion.


--- Quote fom profitis ---What's in it for them?
--- End quote ---
Wrong question idiot.  It's what's in it for them in NOT publishing.  For the vast majority of people - absolutely nothing.  On the other hand for most people publishing something that violates a known law of physics in a way that is utterly and completely undeniable is likely to advance their career and would be a good candidate for a Nobel.  I hear those net you a million dollars.'

 End quote
This is not a certainty.plenty geniuses in history came up with good shit and got no nominations eg.the guy who discovered/createdthe prototype lithium ion battery.
 
--- Quote ---your comparrisons of ip holders to everybody else is

--- End quote ---
A good use of statistics.  I agree.  You have repeatedly stated that everyone is capable of validating OU in a completely unambiguous way.  If that's true then the number of potential validations is pretty close to the global population.  Now you claim that there are people who are against this because of IP.  However the people who make money off energy IP is orders and order and orders of magnitude smaller by comparison.

Add to that most people on earth don't have a million dollars or a career in the sciences.  Hence the expectation is we would see a publication.  We do not, so the likely case is that OU isn't as easy or clear as you keep insisting.  QED.'

 End quote

Or the case is that ou is somewhat ignored by the mainstream media for a number of reasons eg not to fuck up the status quo

My cells are not complex and were published on an open forum and definitely did open doors for my career.there's a handful of other peoples noncomplex overunities on youtube too.so why did these actions not change the world @sarkeizen.its like I said,these things are ignored by those who can change geists ie.they receive no general importance,only local importance ie.important to the authors career.since they are only important to the authors career,they won't have the impact that you are imagining they will have.they won't be validated by the numero-uno validator when majority of people want validation from the numero-uno validator before they believe anything

My cells are not complex and were published on an open forum and

Did you submit to a journal for publication?  Yes or no?  If yes please provide a copy of your paper and the referee comments.  My guess is no.  In which case your complaint is irrelevant.  The fact is you are asking people to believe that out of BILLIONS of people, each and every one - according to you can demonstrate in a utterly unambiguous way that there is absolutely no doubt that they have a OU device.  Not one of them attempted to publish?  Not one of the attempts succeeded?

So far your only objections are:

i) What's in it for them?  This was answered, not only the same advancement that other people who publish get but also a chance at a million dollars.
ii) Why didn't it happen to you?  You didn't get published primarily because you did not attempt it.
iii) They have a vested interest in energy IP.  Only accounts for a microscopic portion of the group.
iv) Novelty in publication.   You simply misunderstand the concept.  Firstly novelty isn't really as strictly enforced as one might wish and secondly it's usually compared to published work.  There is no clear, realized and unambiguous OU published work.  In fact if you look at the publication guidelines from the SAGE group of journals.  Point 1, paragraph one it lists "the conventional wisdom is mistaken" as criteria for considering your contribution novel.  Ergo it's a pretty low bar to pass and especially so in OU.
v) Something about some made up "numero uno".   As someone who has some visibility into publishing in journals I'd say that there is no such thing.  A journal has an editorial board, each article will have reviewers/referees these can come from the board or sometimes suggested by the submitter.  However there is no grand cabal.  No black helicopters arrive to make sure we follow the guidance from our shadowy masters.

So again BILLIONS of potentials, ZERO published articles.   Evidence suggest OU is either not as easy as you say OR it doesn't work.

Makes no difference.you can shove a clean clear overunity experiment into the filthy open forums or the 'prestigious' journals the outcome is the same.

Sorry, you have no opinion here.   You have never submitted your OU nonsense to a journal. 

talk to the noble prize peeps there by you please,ask them if they are willing to dish out a million for a 2lot violation evidence

A million dollars is the Nobel Prize award.  So you will get that if you win.

Tell you what.  You can have an opportunity to show me you're right.  Get an article which clearly and unambiguously states the discovery of over unity in ANY journal with a SJR rank of 1.8 or greater and if you don't win the Nobel prize within two years of publication.  I'll give you $2000.