: The agent posting this message should respond to this
: paragraph, taken from the revised article by the MD/PhD in
: question: >

Well Patriot, as you asked for a response to your post, I invited Dr Chiappalone to read your missive and here is what he said:

This chap manifests terminal madness for sure. Instead of trying to find out what is going on, his fear sends him into a spin. He relies on his very limited knowledge and prejudices to refute what suits him not. Fair enough, he is limited. But to attack as he does confirms gross stupidity and ignorance. What have personal degrees got to do with what is written? How does he know what I do and don't do for a living?
A demon is just one like him, who is suited by the ignorance of darkness and is blinded by any Light of Truth.
Does he still believe the Earth is flat?
Does he still believe the scriptures are accurate reflections of Truth?
Does he really know?
Or is he regurgitating the indoctrination of fools?

He is one of the sods who will have to experience the end to believe it - even then he will try to tell himself his mind is playing tricks, believe me. It is the sort of response of some sceptics who cannot afford to let go of their egotistical stance regarding UFOs. When they sight one which goes close enough to them to singe their nostril hairs, and cover them in angel hair they rant about illusions and delusions and what have you. They are Spiritual Donkeys for sure!
If he does not know what demons are, how can he attack their existence or otherwise. He quotes Jesus in relation to Jehovah (where he is wrong by the way; has he not read John 8:44? Why not quote what Jesus says about demons? Does he only accept what suits him? Sounds like it! Ouch, there goes his credibility once again.
If he knows nothing about existential duality and consciousness, how can he dispute points about them? With his ignorance? That is the only thing apart from his profound fear he has demonstrated with HIS GARBAGE. And besides, only cowards hide behind the limitations of Science which now is used to uphold the illusion. To mount a defence of one's ignorance using the ignorance of limited Science is to confirm the very point I am making about the prosaic reality. Using the very fraudulence of Science to argue against observable facts is the very mechanism of those of Untruth and tautologically which binds one into cycles of ignorance and absurdity. Only bigots and fools argue in such ignorance as he does!
Is he so clever that he knows everything and can easily dispel what does not suit him, or is he so traumatized by his ignorance and fear of failure that he is forced to attack in order to increase his own delusion - of reality and self worth? Just from the little he wrote it appears he is not very clever at all, just fearful and cowardly.
If he thinks the essay is garbage, he ought to show us specifically where the errors are. Moaning about not liking it is hardly a response. And besides, if it were garbage, he would not react as fearfully and as violently as he has. Indeed, the article has touched the deepest chamber of his black heart - and he knows it. The only one he is trying to convince is himself, even though he knows deep down it's true. You know, a very similar scenario occurs in medicine with some patients. When told they have a terminal illness they refuse to accept the diagnosis and instead call the doctor a fool, an idiot who does not know what he is talking about. Even though they know very little about medicine, x-rays, pathology tests, interpreting symptoms and signs, they reject and attack out of ignorance. Often they seek not just a second opinion, but a third and a fourth and a fifth and so on until they exhaust themselves and their families. It is called the Denial Phase. Usually it doesn't last long for the progress of the disease makes the prognosis obvious. And so it is in this case.
An interesting point is the analogy he uses about distasteful food. Metaphorically speaking he is telling us he is gagging on the Truth of what is written. It is unpalatable for him. He finds it hard to swallow, not because it is garbage but because it has this profound effect on him, thus proving the worth of the essay whose essence contrasts totally with his. In the absence of physical agents, and there are no physical agents attacking the throat when reading, gag reflexes come from gross anxiety and fear. The incongruency of his comment about food preventing starvation (what else is food essentially for?) demonstrates a mental fragmentation process in him which will continue and is again verification of the veracity of the essay. And is his use of the combination of the words "starvation" and "redeeming" (as in redemption) in his LAST gasp (sentence) not pathognomonic? You betcha!
Finally, is he that clever that he knows everything and can easily dispel what does not suit him, or is he so traumatized by his ignorance and fear of failure that he is forced to attack to increase his own delusion - of reality and self worth?