Hi Wisdom Seeker. I looked at your document and it is obvious that you put a lot of effort into it. What I noticed is that it is a little bit of hard sell. Half of the document is bolded, which is very tiring and it gives the impression that the author is shouting. In the beginning you quote from Dr. Kauffmann, yet it isn't clear when what you quote stops and where your own narration starts. It appears as if you have seen things on youtube or in articles and then decided that this is the truth, which then gets asserted with 100% conviction, when in some cases it is clear that it is only your opinion of things.
The above gives the impression that it came from the Wuhan Seafood market, but then 8 pages further on you write:
So if one just reads the first 54 pages, then one would go away thinking it came from the Seafood Market, yet on page 62, it is asserted that this is not the case. Perhaps you quoted from sources, which asserted the various things, but again, it is not always clear what is quoted and what is your own opinion.
Further, I suspect you got inspired from the RA material a little and some from the C's and then added it as if it was the truth. You have only know about this material RA and the C's since March 2020, if I understood your intro post correctly and it is hard to not be fired up when one encounters it for the first time. It does help to take the time to read some more before thinking that one has the whole banana on things. Perhaps what you quoted from the RA material or the C's were close to the truth, but to assert it forcefully makes people more likely to be turned off as it is like the born again Bible basher who so badly wants you to see the light of Jesus, the Lord and Saviour etc. The whole approach to the C's sessions is that it is inspiration to then stimulate research for finding truth. They encourage us to use our own brains to figure things out and not to believe them.
You write:
For some it may be deleterious, but whether it might have positive effects, then who knows. It is too early to say much about that. You refer to the C's sessions and what they say about it, later in your writing, but again just because the C's say something does not mean that it is the case, though they have a good track record.
There is no official verifiable data on this. The C's said it, but that it not going to hold in a law of court. Or did you see data elsewhere that verifies this?
Perhaps, an approach to writing a guide if that is the wish, would be to network here about it and make it a group effort. In that way, many eyes and minds would be engaged and more data would be added which would justify more the use of the word, "comprehensive". It might also be toned down a bit and allow for more humbleness in the writing style with less assertions.
Hope this helps.