Just because we're a crowd
Dr. Derek A. Summerfield made a tough support to the boycott and Dr.
Mark Clarfield, I think, made quite a brilliant call for lucidness and the
inconvenience or even the nonsense of such an action.
Many other supported one or other position, and I'm inclined to
believe there's a dose of truth included.
But you all know this whole issue is not about truth, nor justice.
It's about prevalence.
1)If the IMA is punishable in any way by the WMA, it's a matter to be
solved with the regular WMA resources (ethics commission, etc.) and with
the WMA regulations at reach.
2)It may happen that the WMA is populated by either by Mossad agents
or 3rd Reich Agents. In such a case, the result is quite easy to be
predicted. But *you* chose to be part, so swallow it.
3)If everything goes right, a quite "fair" decision will be made, and
no one needs to feel too much disappointed.
But why does the BMJ accepts this prepotent attempt to force organic
decisions by means of a poll? Was it a mere matter of numbers? Was it?
See, something extremely bad is happening in this historical time,
where Doctors can't differentiate from a brainless crowd.
Smash them, no matter the reason, no matter who they are.
Just because we are a crowd.
PS. If this happens in a medical forum... well, I better start
building my bunker.
Competing interests: No competing interests