It is well known that a lot of mindless libel has been disseminated on the net about my health. Apparently this is part of troll activity directed against me personally because of my views on physics. These are radically new and making a tremendous impact worldwide. Apparently a few people, some of them local and wholly unscientific, don’t like ideas or impact, or achievement of any kind. So I went through a voluntary government assessment about a month ago and was found to be in perfect health. I am giving a few details which is normally confidential to me, in order to shut up the gossip once and forever. There were no impairments noted at the Government assessment, no functional restrictions displayed. My mood was stable throughout and there is no medical evidence to suggest any illness, physical or psychological. I handled papers without difficulty, displayed good eye contact and had adequate interaction with the assessor. There was no evidence of cognitive, intellect or memory impairment and I can plan and follow the route of a journey unaided. This is consistent with my medical history files and how I was able to engage with the assessor. My mental state examination results show no illness of any kind, and my visual results with new glasses about three weeks old show essentially perfect vision.”
This is very important in both science and medicine (although one always has to bear in mind that medical ‘doctors’ rarely hold a higher academic degree than a bachelors). Are the bog-standard questions which are aimed mainly at spotting work-dodgers and fake benefit claimants really adequate to detect a Napoleon Complex or other profound malady? Our questions would have been:
Do you believe yourself to be one of the world’s greatest scientists, even though nobody cites your work in the scientific literature or shows any other sign of using it?
Do you believe your medals and scientific papers to be very valuable, even though you have twice tried to sell them with zero success? (If you know a professional economist, ask him to explain the ‘theory of value’ to you; assuming that he is not himself a crackpot).
Do you claim to have theoretical proof that various confidence tricksters really do possess viable perpetual-motion machines?
Have you recommended that HM Government should invest in the development of one of those machines; specifically a never-seen cancer-curing levitating perpetual-motion machine supposedly constructed by a forger, deserter, petty thief and criminal vandal when he was a teenager some 70 years ago?
Have you used HM’s treasury, certainly without permission, as your affiliation for your supposedly ‘scientific’ papers?
Do you have an accomplice who has proclaimed, on internet radio, that Einstein was an anti-Tesla tool of the Rockefellers and that Einstein and Cartan helped the Nazis to build anti-gravity flying saucers AND, when you had the opportunity to deny these ludicrous claims on the same radio show, did you fail to do so?
Have you suggested that the Bessler Wheel, a fraudulent energy-producing device which was exposed centuries ago, was actually a viable device?
Have you illegally backed supposed (i.e. quack) cancer-cures, quite contrary to UK law?
Do you believe yourself to be a member of the British aristocracy, even though the College-of-Arms will happily tell any inquirer that you are certainly not?
Do you take on feudal titles simply because you feel like it?
Do you try to impede lawful building-work in your environs, while making dubious property claims of your own?
Do you consider yourself to be an uncrowned king, and decoration, of your community, even though the evidence is that the community is more inclined to think you a pariah?
Have you committed acts of sedition by proposing the secession of Wales from the UK and its nuclear protection by a foreign power?
Do you routinely exhibit ‘transference’; that is, do you routinely accuse others (‘trolls’) of lying (your own defect) when they merely ‘speak as they find’ and have overwhelming proof to back up such free speech?
We could go on, and on, and on, but you get the idea. Perhaps our readers could suggest some supplementary questions.