Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:809 (4 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7418.809
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORThere were some enthusiastic champions of the concept, but, overall, respondents remained to be convinced that the "Polypill" issue was indeed a collector's item and a possible contender for the most important BMJ paper in 50 years, as the editor had indicated.1-5 Images of the tooth fairy and April foolery were invoked, along with gasps of horror, astonishment, and incredulity that the hypothesis should be taken for anything approaching rigorous science.
This was proof, if any were needed, that the BMJ had finally lost the plot, judged several contributors.
Chief among the concerns was the lack of trial evidence for the effectiveness of the Polypill, or any facsimile, for that matter. Wasn't the assumption that the six constituents would work cumulatively and in perfect synergy a foolish one to make on the basis of results from disparate trials? What about the effects of aspirin on people with asthma
Caroline White, freelance medical journalist
London E17 4SQ