You seem upset that I put your name to your own theory.   How did you manage to misread (misconstrue?) my original post to somehow come up with the notion (which is false) that I was proposing an adrenochrome theory, rather than making a comment on how ANONS have been treating the general theory and proposition (which I attempted to summarize, and which that exists out there completely without any connection to myself)?  YOU put the theory together in your summary. If it was already proposed as a theory by someone else, I apologize, but I think you're full of shit on that one and you know it. If it exists out there already presented the way you wrote it as an actual theory, and not just being construed from a bunch of random people with similar ideas about whatever they imagine or believe or speculate about adrenochrome, then please present that source to prove what you're saying here that it's an already formulated theory.   How do you take my proposition: "the Adrenochrome Theory (proposition, idea, assertion) is indiscriminately being given too much value, being treated as if true and factual, when there is limited evidence supporting it" and "whether it is true or not, promoting it as if true without more evidence at this time is unhelpful and not essential to the Q Mission" and twist it into "Fractalizing Iron is proposing "AT" and promoting it based on speculation?"  You DID propose the theory yourself, and I merely pointed out how the theory fails, and more importantly why it fails. You should have seen I was supporting that it was false, so why are you complaining? Did I attack you personally within my OP? No. Just the theory. Lighten the fuck up. I only intended to bring attention to your own OP that appears as though you wanted to present it for discussion, but I had a significant response that I didn't want lost to others in an older post because I thought the subject was worth dicussing, so I posted a new thread. All I did was explain why it isn't really a theory and offered some insight into how to properly develop a theory. But you're so concerned about your fEEEElings that you react like a brainless lefty thinking I'm attacking YOU.  I chaff when someone asserts I am saying something I'm not and then proceeds to critique or criticize it as if it is mine.  But you DID say it! It's right in your summary that YOU put together! This part: "Significant scale manufacturing of natural adrenochrome [...] via torture and abuse of small children". YOU presented this theory. It has never been formally presented otherwise, at least that's widely known about. Show me that the theory you presented already exists just as you summarized it, otherwise it's yours whether you like it or not.   Any intelligent reader would be able to read what I wrote and understand that I was attempting (perhaps poorly) to summarize the generality of the Adreno-related theories out there in the Qanon community, and analyse THAT in the context of the Q mission, rather than saying anything about the validity (or not) of the general Adrenochrome theories that are out there (and which I have never proposed, btw).  I'm an intelligent reader, so I take offense that you treat me like I'm fucking stupid. But whatever. It certainly WAS poorly thought out, and that's my issue with this whole subject in general and the attraction it has for non-thinking morons who jump to conclusions based on anything but logic.  You basically state here that you were attempting to summarize a bunch of different ideas, beliefs, etc. into a single theory in order to then analyze the result, but that's not what you did, and it wouldn't make any sense to do that and call it a theory anyway. You introduced a specific idea as a theory and offered it up for discussion. I'm responding, and now you're getting all smarmy and trying to worm out of what you said.  I was merely pointing out the problems with your admittedly poorly thought out theory. If you know the theory is false, then I would expect that you can see that I'm giving reasons why it's not very good at reflecting the facts and you should accept them (or refute them), rather than get all defensive about who presented the theory and try to detach yourself from what you wrote. You're not a very capable thinker. Maybe you should just shut up if you can't accept criticism for your poorly thought out ideas?  I'm pretty sure you're not simply applying a Straw Man strategy ala Magnifico, coz if you are, then you're shilling.  Does a shill use logical arguments to make his points? My OP is straight up good information and pertinent questions. No attacks on you personally anywhere within it. So tell me how I'm shilling. It could just as well be the other way around with your own OP.   "theory" by definition, or course, assumes or asserts things that may not be true.   It's not a theory if it's too broad or general in it's definition to allow for reliable testing. Yours (yes, YOURS) as you summarized it is defined well enough to test it, which I did, and as it's written, needs a lot of factual supporting evidence to give it any merit.   Otherwise, it's called "fact".  So you think that any idea at all is a theory until it's proven or disproven? Wrong. You can't construct a theory until you have some supporting facts or evidence to base it on. You based yours on almost nothing but rumors. What facts or evidence do you have to support your main premise? I.e. "Significant scale manufacturing via the torture and abuse of small children."  Small scale production from the torture and abuse of children I would have had no problem with. But you suggest the daily slaughter of children in the hundreds or thousands in order to account for the needs of a relatively large population of adrenochrome addicted people. Your whole premise relies on adrenochrome being addictive, otherwise why would they need such mass scale production if it wasn't? I've looked high and low for information on its addictive qualities, and came up dry. I came across one scientific paper that went into extensive detail about its effects, but it didn't mention any addictive qualities. So the idea that mass scale production takes place as you describe it (through the abuse and torture of small children) needs to be reconsidered. Are you not willing to support this argument? Are you going to continue to pretend I'm attacking you? Can't you accept someone looking at your theory and showing how it doesn't stand up? What was the point of presenting it then???