Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I fully concur with the need to make all areas of medicine accessible
to generalists and students. However the portrayal of neurologists as
'bores' or 'village elders' interested only in esoteric conditions is like
all stereotypes, misleading and unfair. Neurologists are responsible for
many of the advances in the understanding of the common neurodegenerative
conditions outlined elegantly elsewhere in this journal. I am amazed that
the BMJ can rigorously apply the standards of evidence based medicine, yet
allow the pages of its review section to be used as a vehicle for such
blatant personal prejudice.
Stereotyping neurologists is not helpful
I fully concur with the need to make all areas of medicine accessible
to generalists and students. However the portrayal of neurologists as
'bores' or 'village elders' interested only in esoteric conditions is like
all stereotypes, misleading and unfair. Neurologists are responsible for
many of the advances in the understanding of the common neurodegenerative
conditions outlined elegantly elsewhere in this journal. I am amazed that
the BMJ can rigorously apply the standards of evidence based medicine, yet
allow the pages of its review section to be used as a vehicle for such
blatant personal prejudice.
Competing interests: No competing interests