I can't keep writing about New Zealand doctors Sam and Mark Bailey much longer - I am running out of puns. I tried 'Baileys Creamed' for one piece but the title was rejected in favour of Baileys’ Quoque (sounds like coffee?) and my imagination has run out. Just in case anyone didn't cover it in history at school, my pathetic attempt here is based on a type of castle that we used to learn about at school.
In fact, I have not written that much about them at all but have written a few pieces in The Daily Sceptic and Country Squire Magazine about their, and others', beliefs which run counter to prevailing scientific evidence regarding several things but especially the existence of viruses. In addition to Bailey's Quoque I initially wrote The real truth about viruses in The Daily Sceptic and Virus deniers in Country Squire Magazine.
 |
| Not viruses - apparently |
The first piece drew, what one colleague described as a 'weapons grade' response from the Baileys which I loved and my most recent piece elicited The Lazy Lies of Roger Watson which, on the basis that there is no bad publicity, I also love. I am almost impossible to offend - but people keep trying and I urge them to do so - and I absolutely respect their right of reply by whatever means they can make it.
But I fail to see why a couple - they are not alone among the virus deniers but they are in a minority - and who are so firm in their beliefs need to respond at all, take such obvious offence, make ad hominem attacks, try to silence and just re-state the same old tosh. And I did say 'try to silence' as they issued a 'Letter of Claim Defamation' (sic) to Country Squire Magazine which shows , as the valiant editor of Country Squire Magazine Dom Wightman always says that 'we are hovering over the target'. They are not the only ones to do this as Mark Steele, who describes himself as a 'Research Scientist' (clearly not a protected designation then) and 5G warrior, who I also mentioned in my most recent article, also tried to have the magazine remove the article. The full glory of the Bailey's attempt to have the article removed - to which they received a robust response from the editor can be viewed at the foot of this article.
