Rapid Responses to:

LETTERS: John P Briffa The prince and the professor: Which emperor is naked? BMJ 2004; 329: 858 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Competing interests..?

Austin Elliott   (19 October 2004)

Re: Competing interests..?

John P Briffa   (20 October 2004)

Competing interests..? 19 October 2004
Austin Elliott, Lecturer in Physiology University of Manchester, M13 9PT Send response to journal: Re: Competing interests..?	Dr John Briffa defends natural therapies against Prof Baum's broadside, quoting "absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence". Dr Briffa specializes in natural therapies and writes a weekly column in the Observer advocating and promoting them. His living arguably depends on the public's belief in the efficacy of natural therapies. This does not make his view any less valid, but it could surely be argued that this meets the definition of a "competing interest". Competing interests: ACE is a science lecturer and researcher and has taken both conventional and herbal medicines.
Re: Competing interests..? 20 October 2004
John P Briffa, Doctor and Writer Woolaston House, 25 Southwood Lane, Highgate, London N6 5ED Send response to journal: Re: Re: Competing interests..?	Elliott suggests that the naturally-oriented approach I take in my work represents a conflict of interest. In medical journals such as the BMJ, it is not uncommon for doctors to make claims that are supportive of conventional medical approaches. If Elliott is correct, then should not ALL such doctors who earn income from medicine declare this as a 'conflict of interest'? If this is the consensus, then I’m more than happy to comply. Perhaps the BMJ can clarify its position on this. drjbriffa@aol.com Competing interests: None declared