That is rather uncharitable. Although it is understandable you think pre-data is impossible, and want to provide a non-incredible explanation.

But that does not change what it is. And it is arrogant, cruel and inconsiderate to misrepresent the work of someone who shares, as less than what it is, because you find it hard to accept.

You do not want to believe it is anything but chance. Or pattern recognition. But I also think buried deep under your skepticism is genuine curiosity. So I offer this further information not to convince what is in the way for you but to speak to that curiosity and to anyone else open and interested.

It took me rather a number of years to start to post publicly to Twitter and a more to feel okay telling other people about the Twitter. Before public I did the same private recording of data in email. Eventually I gained confidence and the non-verifiability of email I saw a disadvantaged. It has been a process for me when I have had to carefully manage myself and my feelings about this. It seems you may not appreciate the courage or difficulty of sharing publicly.

I too am skeptical. And struggled to believe it could be real many times. One reason is the implications are huge. But I also do not want to misrepresent what I can do and pretend it is nothing. And there is a lot of data on that Twitter that repeatedly shows incredible and correct information.

The information comes to me as a signal. It is qualitatively different to an emotion, thought or regular sense impression. I perceive it and I can choose to look more into it to resolve further details. I interpret what I see and I record that. I have improved my process over time.

The phrase you ommitted from my pandemic data "I do not think it is a pandemic" is an example of a rationalization or an analytic overlay. That is where I am applying my bias, and showing that I do not believe it could be possible. I am getting signal and I am also prejudging my data. I almost may not have recorded that. Over time I have discovered it is better to simply record without judgment. You can see an example of the same dynamic in the threads on the massive event:

https://mobile.twitter.com/syndic8_xyz/status/14373852310659...

You may consider the existence of these contrary rationalizations as evidence against what you propose. Namely that I am cultivating a belief in these future events by experience and exposure. Personally I do not consider them such contra-evidence because I have a stronger evidence that better convinces me these are not simply projections of subconscious fears or ideas, including: how unlikely it is to pick these hits; and, as stated above, the qualitative difference in signal versus other qualia.

The data you refer to is itself is simple but incredible. It clearly says pandemic not epidemic nor outbreak. A pandemic is a multi-regional, or global epidemic.

I think in contrast it is you who is reaching to try to minimize and misrepresent US less than what it is something which really is incredible.

Also, a clarification: I do not think it accurate to say, and I try to not say these days, "I predict."

I see, and interpret. I do not calculate and predict.