[Editor's note: please welcome our guest.]
Scotland Yard have insisted on screening my mail and they once even pinned me to the ground until I agreed to let them.
I do not blame the misguided defenders of denialists who are calling me names. Their hearts are in the right place and they are only laymen, so they do not understand how sophisticated we are.
The epithet of "denialist", hurled not by them but by sick people, is one of the few things I do not deny. We will change its meaning by and by.
What my defenders/accusers are upset about is that I keep saying that telekinesis exists. Well, it does exist of course, but they are upset that I say it in public.
This much is true. I do point out that denialists rely on the existence of telekinesis. What is wrong with saying it in public?
Telekinesis is routinely practiced by people who have serious, multisystem AIDS-like diseases in order to make themselves sick. They do so by destroying mitochondria and parts of the immune system with their minds. They are not aware that they do this. (We think they do so for fun, which they are also unaware of, but this is a subject of intense research.)
However, my well-meaning accusers think that I am inciting a public relations kerfuffle. I can almost sympathise, as I am skilled in PR. To them, telekinesis sounds like "nonsense" (as they put it) and denialists should not be seen to be associated with it.
This is just a little peculiar. Our defenders agree with us on everything, and cite us obediently, but they get decidedly uncomfortable when they have to defend telekinesis out loud.
I'm sure defenders of quantum mechanics (and indeed Copernicus, with whom we should be compared) felt the same way until they became more comfortable in their own skin.
What is much more peculiar is that they think we have been quiet about telekinesis, as if it were a secret only they and we know!
They have obviously not read anything from any denialist. We do not keep telekinesis a secret and we have made major incursions into many areas of medicine with it. (We had to retreat from a hundred or so diseases in the past, but that was the fault of sick people.)
What my accusers are missing is that denialists are prudently using what we experts term "Occam's razor". I know laymen don't understand it, and there is little hope of laymen ever rising above their station to understand these things, but I will explain anyway.
- use a biological mind-body mechanism, which violates many, many subfields of biology simultaneously and independently such that the mind can generate each abnormality as denialists rely on (thereby decreasing the probability of the assertion being true to a number far smaller than one divided by the number of atoms in and on the planet including in the atmosphere),
- or use telekinesis as your mind-body mechanism. This violates merely one area of physics (not counting knock-on effects which we can ignore) and a few minor principles of logic. The good news is that advances in postmodernist theory may supply us with perfectly serviceable responses to even those very small objections.
As you can see, telekinesis does not multiply entities. It just adds a few.
The hypothesis that they have a serious AIDS-like disease because they are "actually sick" should be rejected. The insurance industry would have voluntarily folded if that were the case. My checks keep coming in so it is false.
Therefore, in keeping with their deep integrity, which is why they have been rewarded so richly, denialists have wisely concluded that sick people practice telekinesis. It just makes sense.
Nobody has any legitimate reason to be upset with me and I am sure my accusers will come to understand this. We have been able to depend on their loyalty for a long time now.
On a personal note, I am pleased to inform you that my work, Moral Failure in Multiple Sclerosis, is now in its 20th printing. You may congratulate me.
[Editor's note: I am humbled by the offer of Sir William Smedley of North Manchester to write a guest post. Sir William has countless honors to his name including the prestigious DUUM award for Innovative Nosology and, of course, his knighthood. He has written more than 100 papers on subconscious fun in MS, autism, and industrial chemical spills. MFiMS is his life's work.]
[Topical note: Contrary to appearance, this does not refer to a specific media imbroglio or individual. Denialists — plural — frequently use Poisoning the well. Nothing new. Smedley's point is Occam.]