Advice from “Lunatics”, or Bullshit?

Dear Editor,

We have read with interest your article with the front-page headline “Lunatics in Government” (Algarve Resident edition, July 15). We have been analysing the causes and statistics of false-positive testing results. We find the number of deaths from covid-19 in Portugal to be even lower than the 80 per-month figure in your article. That is probably an overestimate due to false-positive tests on patients who would have died anyhow of other underlying health issues.

Moreover, the old-fashioned English word “lunatic” is too kind: it implies mental illness that would deserve all our sympathy. The politicians and their scientific advisors, who are milking this pandemic, are not worthy of the medical diagnostic label “lunatics”; and deserve no such mitigation.

“Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise” is well-known English adage that rings true in the present context. Politicians who govern us dread ignorance: they yearn power and control. They pay so-called “scientific advisors” to supply information. These charlatans will say whatever politicians want to hear to justify their salaried existence and its continuation. Advisors to government politicians, who cannot co-exist with ignorance, are not bone fide scientists, they are “pseudoscientists” *[see footnote].

Whereas no covid infection statistics (before testing) was ‘bliss’, PCR-testing is ‘folly’, giving rise to bullshit beyond belief *[see footnote]. Misleading test results for coronavirus tell us nothing, yet they are used by government pseudoscientists to justify the restriction of our civil liberties.

According to WHO-‘scientific advisors’, other respiratory viruses disappeared during Covid-19 pandemic because public health measures, helpless against coronavirus, beat all other respiratory viruses. This official explanation is yet more bullshit!

Respiratory viruses, covid-19 and variants included, are transmitted by airborne droplets as they must be hydrated to survive; hence, masks! If surgical masks had stopped flu by stopping all micro-droplets, then they must have also stopped coronavirus. The only plausible explanation is that all coronavirus tests consistently and falsely identify all respiratory viruses as coronavirus, hugely exaggerating covid-19 official case numbers and covid-death estimates, resulting in current ‘false-alarm’ covid apparent outbreaks.

Incomplete genetic information, hitherto attributed to the coronavirus, is largely pseudoscience. Vaccines are, at best, ineffective, as evidenced by ‘outbreaks’ developing since beginning of July 2021, also in UK and also Israel, where almost all adults are fully vaccinated. We should: (i) test patients who test positive for coronavirus for other cold and flu viruses, (ii) check coronavirus tests for false positives on volunteers with other respiratory viruses like common colds.

Meanwhile, we should also (iii) stop routine and compulsory PCR testing, i.e., until precise genetic code of covid-19 and its variants is available; for true tests and effective vaccines. Finally (iv) we must return to normality immediately to stop politically-induced covid-19 fallout fatalities, not least our dying Algarve economy!

Igor Khmelinskii, Peter Stallinga
and Leslie Woodcock
Faculty of Science and Technologies, University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal

P.S. Have Resident readers heard about the skydiver who forgot to open his parachute? He died from the coronavirus!

* Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Colloquially, pseudoscience = “bullshit”.
** V. Moberger (2020: “Bullshit, Pseudo-science and Pseudo-philosophy”, Theoria, 86(5): 595–611) Bullshit is formally defined in philosophy to describe a type of falsehood whence the liar knows the truth but chooses not to tell it, whereas a person who utters bullshit is not interested in whether what they say is true or false, only in its suitability for purpose.

Disclaimer: This letter expresses the personal opinions of its authors, and not of the University.