Sir, With successive ocular oscillations I was able to visually partake in your scripted correspondence which you had consensually contributed to the JRSM.1 It was only by this due process, and not, I hasten to add, by any other assimilated or subjunctive discursions [sic], that I am both rendered and obligated (here and now, that is, in this present moment of time) to concur and unconditionally agree with your stated and assumed viewpoint. Your avowed, declared and affirmed stance is admirable – and I am minded to assume a positive, and thus non-negative, psyche which is in turn positive (and thus non-negative) in both willpower and essence. That said, one must remember, that I should not publicly nor openly state these assertions. We know that overt is superior to covert, but equally it then surely is by the same token akin to the pouch of Douglas in your own profession: what lurks therein should by definition lurk. To be seen to be not lurking implies a measure of dissimilitude, and this leads to a lack of perspective. Elaboration evaporates to a greater sense of overdoing. And the result? Well, failure of course. Just as the sun should never set on a breech, then too much exaggeration leads to the greater folly. The folly of Lord Darzi's attempt at evidence-based medicine. To gain a foothold in such arguments is to clutch at random ideas which float, ballpark-figure-like, in an imaginary delusional ether. My point is thus: it is to realize that this letter will be of greater worth but, surely, lesser by dint of its certain context. My approach in such matters is but surely akin to that of your own. In shared and mutual confusion, Yours etc,
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 2024
Susana Limanto + 2
Open Access
