Sera is right with good analogies from the movies. Old-head is right on the “antivaxers.” Tell us your story, but only the one we want to hear. And tell it to us this way, so the proper people can be credited. Years ago, I remember going to court to defend myself against a false charge of PTSD. I waited for the prosecutor to present his evidence. Aside from the accusation itself, he had none. I then pointed this out to the judge. I then offered to take the witness stand so that i could be examined under oath, so i could tell my story from my perspective. They said no. They only wanted to hear “my story” from the perspective of the psychiatrist that I refused to “see.” I was puzzled by this. Why would i need a psychiatrist to interpret my words? Did my words not matter? Did my story need to be cleansed? The psychiatrist they told me to see had been chosen by the prosecutor. In an adversarial system, this guy works for the prosecutor. In other words, my story would be told through the eyes of a prosecution witness. Do you really think he would have told my story in a light favorable to me? In other words, in a court of law, my words, my story, was of zero evidentiary value. The only way my story had evidentiary value was if i allowed the prosecutor’s psychiatrist to tell it. I was also ordered to pay this psychiatrist $2000 to tell my story. They were all a bit flabbergasted that i was unwilling to participate in this exercise in adversarial story telling. I was insulted and called names. In court. By a judge. They were frustrated that i refused to play the game. But i knew that without participating in this story telling exercise that they would have no “evidence”. And without evidence, i cannot be found “guilty.” In fact i asked, in court, arent I innocent til proven guilty? And the judge had the audacity to say “we are beyond that at this point.” Beyond that? How is it possible to be “beyond that” when zero evidence had been presented. Without the testimony of the hired gun telling my story, they had no “evidence.” They found me guilty anyway. And for 19 years i have been punished for my alleged crime. PTSD. It is sad that a person can be accused of a “disorder” like PTSD from 3000 miles away and that they are believed even when they are not in court. They are believed more than i was despite the fact i was sitting right in front of them denying it was true. It is sad that i would be presumed guilty instead of innocent just because the accusation involves psychiatry. Had i been accused of any other crime, i would be presumed innocent and allowed to testify without someone else “interpreting” my words.