Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Why such a light sentence?
- Jeffrey Mann (5 November 2004)
-
If you charge for the online BMJ.
- Reuben Baker (5 November 2004)
-
Re: If you charge for the online BMJ.
- Peter Morrell (6 November 2004)
-
Re: Re: If you charge for the online BMJ.
- Tony Delamothe (6 November 2004)
-
Re: The snake oil salesman
- Mark Struthers (6 November 2004)
-
British Society of Integrated Medicine ( BSIM ) : Arise Or Perish !!!
- Joseph . C . Obi (7 November 2004)
-
More inappropriate adverts
- Adam Jacobs (8 November 2004)
-
Re: Re: The snake oil salesman
- Peter Morrell (12 December 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: The snake oil salesman
- Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich (14 December 2004)
-
Re: The rank weed and snake oil salesman
- Mark Struthers (21 December 2004)
-
Re: Re: The rank weed and snake oil salesman
- Peter Morrell (23 January 2005)
|
|
|||
|
Jeffrey Mann, Retired physician Salt Lake City, UT 84103
Send response to journal:
|
I cannot understand why the GMC imposed such a light sentence of a 1 year suspended practice. Surely, the deliberate choice to practice traditional western medicine in sheer defiance of known EBM scientific evidence is such an extreme transgression, that it places that physician outside the field of traditional medicine. Does such a deliberate choice not deserve a lifetime, or near-lifetime, revocation of that physician's licensure to practice traditional western medicine? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Reuben Baker, Retired teacher Scotland TD8 6PS
Send response to journal:
|
The snake oil salesmen will not charge me, a non-medical, to read their claims on the internet but any caution signals made by the BMJ will be only be seen by the converted. Please keep the access free on-line. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Morrell, Hon Research Associate, History of Medicine Staffordshire University, UK
Send response to journal:
|
Reuben Baker says, "please keep the access free on-line." Good point! But, as I understand it, this is simply not going to happen. From January BMJ will be subscription only. Not only have all email addresses been recently removed from the rapid responses, without prior notice, but soon there will only be rapid responses for an elite few: the subscribers. Again, I hope to be corrected on this. It would be useful to know whether the non-subscribers will still be able to freely access the 'old stuff,' pre-Jan 2005? And how long will it be before pay-only 'new stuff' becomes freely accessible 'old stuff?' It goes without saying, that the new BMJ will be nowhere near as much fun, but some readers will doubtless welcome he demise of many non-paying "single issue lay campaigners." Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Tony Delamothe, web editor, bmj.com BMA House, London WC1H 9JR
Send response to journal:
|
Our editorial of 8 October 2004 said: "Unique website functions and features—such as searching, email alerting, and rapid responses—will remain free." http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7470/814 This repeats the words of a previous editorial published in August 2003: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7409/241 Last month's editorial also answers the old stuff/new stuff question. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, General Practitioner Bedfordshire. mark.struthers@which.net
Send response to journal:
|
Peter Morrell referred to the recent peremptory removal of the email address from rapid responses. I wonder if I could be permitted to comment on how badly this whole issue was handled by the web editor – that and the woeful and worrisome inconsistency in the application of the low threshold/high threshold question. This clearly does not augur well for a healthy future for the BMJ online. Richard Smith, in February this year, was most forthright about the rapid response and these thresholds. “Of course some rapid responses are intemperate, confused, reactionary, nonsensical, irrational, and largely worthless, but the cleansing value of free speech outweighs these miseries. When we took a vote, the board was unanimously in favour of the low threshold.” [1] And of course Richard Smith is no longer the editor and accountable for all it contains. Things have changed and there is obviously a cold wind and big new brush sweeping through the BMJ! [2] I take it that amongst other empty blandishments, an enticement for the future non-subscriber will include freedom of access to rapid responses. Of course, it will be difficult to contribute substantially to an article that one is prevented from reading. Presumably, the single- issue lay campaigner that wishes so to do will have either to stump up the cash, respond rapidly or seek out a friendly BMA member. I predict that the online BMJ will be much the poorer left in the hands of tiresome, underemployed doctors who consistently fail to contribute substantially to anything, let alone the topic. Anecdote has it that some of these girlie- men were being kept away for fear of harassment. Tony Delamothe is selling a pup – and this is gratuitously insulting to any campaigner, lay or otherwise. [3] [1] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7436/413#50556 [2] This chimney sweep has horns, a spiked tail, forked tongue and web feet. [3] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7380/63#78231 Competing interests: I am a BMA member and believe that in electing Dubya for four years the Americans have been swindled - leaving the rest of us accountable. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joseph . C . Obi, Provost and Emeritus Chair of Nutritional Immunomodulation RCAM (Royal College of Alternative Medicine) www.RoyalCAM.org
Send response to journal:
|
Medically-Qualified Consultants in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) must remain exceedingly wary of the Utterly Shameless Professional Vendetta which is currently being horrifically waged against them by the Orthodox Clinical Establishment...especially when it comes to matters relating to the General Medical Council (GMC). These Obtuse Orthordox Bigots are only too happy to gleefully hop onto their 'Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Hobby-Horses' whenever it daintily suits them ; forgetting (of course) that almost 95% of Conventional Medical Practice is decisively not 'Evidence-Based' at all. All 'Integrated Physicians' must therefore henceforth stubbornly insist that at least 2 Seasoned Lay GMC Panelists with particular expertise in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) are consistently involved in their cases from start to finish ; to provide that much needed Ethical Balance throughout all Investigations and Proceedings. If the GMC is not willing to comply with this reasonable demand , then it is absolutely imperative that an Order from the High Courts be maverickly obtained to compel the GMC to expediently do so ; as the GMC (in it's Infinite Wisdom) knows relatively nothing about Advanced CAM Therapies. I also remain exceedingly worried about one particular 'Expert Witness' from Exeter : He seems to waste so much of his Precious Professorial Time (ardently claiming that most CAM Remedies do not work) that I sometimes wonder whether he was actually planted in his 'Complementary Chair' by the Orthodox Medical Establishment to cause nothing but Morbid Chaos and Abject Confusion within our Noble Specialty. Contrary to what this Grandiose Expert Witness may wish to think of himself , he is NOT the only CAM Professor on the Planet ; and I strongly advise all embattled CAM Doctors to swiftly contact RCAM if ever they need a Firebrand Emeritus Professor to provide Expert Testimony in front of the GMC. Finally, I would humbly like to call upon the Distinguished President (and Council) of the British Society of Integrated Medicine (BSIM) to urgently register any serious concerns about the exceedingly poor handling of such CAM Cases directly to the General Medical Council (and the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence), to avoid the Pitiful Repeat of such Woeful Miscarriages of Justice in Future. There is absolutely no point in recognizing 'Integrated Medicine' as an 'Official GMC Revalidation Specialty' in the UK , if no 'Independent CAM Professionals' are fairly involved in ethically processing any related Conduct and Performance Issues concerning the very Integrated Physicians which they publicly claim to Revalidate. Competing interests: Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM (Dublin) FRIPH (UK) FACAM (USA) also supervises an Interdisciplinary Revalidation Initiative (IRI) for Seasoned Practitioners in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Please kindly visit www.RoyalCAM.org for more details |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited, London SW19 3TZ
Send response to journal:
|
I realise that the BMJ can keep its proposed charges for access to the journal as low as possible by selling advertising space on its pages, but I must add my voice to those who have previously criticised the way the BMJ's adverts work. Does anyone at the BMJ really feel it is appropriate that one of the adverts accompanying this news story advertises bitter apricot kernels as 'cancer prevention seeds'? Seriously, guys, I think it is time to have a good hard look at how your adverts work. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Morrell, Hon Research Associate, History of Medicine Staffordshire University, UK
Send response to journal:
|
Regarding the new policies concerning rapid responses, introduced unilaterally in October, any regular reader can plainly see that, contrary to predictions made at the time, only a very tiny percentage of responders actually include their email address, probably less than 1%. They either forget, like I do, or can't be bothered. Perhaps the editors can be persuaded to ponder the effects these draconian policy changes are having? These effects are first that all previously healthy and frequent, and sometimes delightful, dialogues between readers have been almost entirely extinguished by the simple lack of email addresses. Second, the new censorship rules, referred to once by Mark Struthers as being 'too high or too low,' and which were dumbly claimed to reduce insubstantial or scurrilous contributions to debate, have in fact stopped many people from contributing at all. Even when you do contribute it might take several attempts to win the approval of the censors. Inevitably this is all very off-putting. If this continues then the BMJ will continue on the steep downward course it has selected towards becoming truly bland, anodyne, boring stuff. The editors and their censorial paymasters can grimly congratulate themselves that they are fast achieving that goal already. All this very effectually stifles debate about, or interest in, health matters, oops, you know, the very things the publication claims to be about. I therefore think these absurd and unwarranted policies should be reversed and debate and interest stimulated once again. It would be interesting to hear the views of others on this topic, not that I imagine it will make any difference to the policy creators and their zealous implementers. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich, Private Practice Bribie Island, Australia 4507
Send response to journal:
|
What we need is astute observation of good men. (When good men do nothing...) Peter Morrell's comments are astute and point the finger of a good man to emerging problems that are, it seems to me, getting worse as they are not being addressed. After receiving a comment concerning my submission stating that it wasn't contributing substantially to the subject etc. and having others just turned down with no comment, I am getting the distinct impression that my skills and the quality of my thoughts both are fading fast. If the BMJ turned down comments for the above reasons then we would have an interesting situation indeed. The exchange of ideas in a forum such as this is not comparable with the defence of one's doctoral dissertation or an important scientific paper. I was under the impression that this was a FORUM. Whatever others may think of Richard Smith, the departed editor, shortly after he left we could feel an ill and chilly wind in the BMJ at intervals. The draconian measure of taking away e-mail adresses under very questionable excuses was bad enough, other measures like covert censorship of opinions and editing of such only leads this correspondent to wonder what road the BMJ has chosen. If plans to charge for access are carried out I will have to think hard. Not because I am cheap or tight with my money . I would have happily paid for the pleasure of reading and participating in the OLD BMJ. So perhaps people like P. Morrell ought to be listened to. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, General Practitioner Bedfordshire, UK. mark.struthers@which.net
Send response to journal:
|
In giving his opinion (14 December) on the difficulties encountered in scaling the rapid response threshold bar, Dr Herbert Nehrlich referred to the words of ‘the world’s favourite quotation’. In full, the quote is usually written thus: “It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph.” While taking the risk of flying at a tangent to the topic, I may perhaps be permitted to examine the origins of these words and their relevance to the issue under discussion. As it happens, the origins have been the subject of some interesting correspondence in ‘The Independent’ recently. The above quotation is always attributed to Edmund Burke (1729-97), an Irish-born Whig politician and man of letters. However, no trace of these words an be found in any of his voluminous writings and it may be that the origin is to be found in an address given by John Stuart Mill in February 1867 as rector of the University of St Andrew’s in Scotland. A similar sentence to that quoted above appears in the context of a discussion on international law, during a long and wide ranging analysis of the purpose and functions of a university. The actual words of John Stuart Mill (1806-73), English Philosopher and economist, were, “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing”. It is interesting though that Edmund Burke in ‘Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents’ (1770) wrote, “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” And in a more telling sentence that preceded the quote above, John Stuart Mill, in his rectorial address said, “Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.” Happy Christmas. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Morrell, Hon Research Associate, History of Medicine Staffordshire University, UK
Send response to journal:
|
While watching the numbers of rapid responses recently they seemed to me to be going down steep. Therefore, I began collecting data. The results show a dramatic decline since the middle of December onwards. The number of rapid responses per article was averaging around 4 and reaching as high as 7 or 8 at times in October and November. The detailed averages are shown below, but it is clear that by late December this average was below 4. By early January it had sunk below 3 and in the last 6 days or so it stands at just 1.2 per article. This level of rapid responses represents only 28% of the level of rapid responses per article that was visible in October and November. Number of rapid response per article and this as a % of the November average November = 4.192 [100%]
The number of rapid responses has to be seen as an indicator of the general number of people visiting the website, and is thus a measure of its popularity worldwide. This dramatic decline in rapid responses must therefore signify a slump in the number of people visiting the BMJ website. The only explanation I can see for this decline is the introduction of the 'pay to see' policy that started in January 2005, but which was announced in the closing months of 2004. That being the case, it is clear that this policy has had a pretty massive impact on the number of people choosing NOT to visit the site and thus in failing to respond to articles on it. In other words, what is happening is exactly what Mark Struthers predicted would happen when he said: "of course, it will be difficult to contribute substantially to an article that one is prevented from reading." [1] [1] Mark Struthers, Re: The snake oil salesman, BMJ e-letter, 6 November 2004 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7474/1066-f#84233 Competing interests: None declared |
|||