Summary on Twitter: The relative lack of interest in this topic is counterproductively surreal and disturbing. We have become chronically used to persistent lawbreaking and aggressive insistence on malpractice. Neither medics, associations nor bodies of state define the law. Not your GP, not the RGCP, not the BMA, not NICE, not Cochrane nor the CDC. The lack of interest continues the community's misdiagnoses of the nature of power and control in our context, playing the game on the wrong terms, terms that are entirely defined by the fallacious malfeasants. Ignoring this ignores the underlying fundamental factor that defines everyday conversations with medics, the NICE process, the CDC process, Cochrane review, Swedish parliamentary sessions, etc. Literally everything. All those processes exists within the limits of the law and do not define what is lawful. Full stop. The sooner we realise that, the sooner we have realised the primary truth that is inconvenient to the lawbreakers and their facilitators. Our response is all too often to persuade or educate, only. This is very appropriate where there is no bad faith, not where there is persistence or insistence. I understand. We tend to stick to the persuasion for a fear of upsetting people or being accused of "activism". But this is a mix of accepting 1) bastardized terms of engagement defined by the "the opposition" and 2) it often veers into beaten wife syndrome, frankly. Our fear is irrelevant to the law. Our relative lack of interest is disturbing.
