Doctors who offered “magic potions” found guilty of serious professional misconduct
BMJ 2004; 329 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7474.1066-f (Published 04 November 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;329:1066
All rapid responses
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.
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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.
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Re: The rank weed and snake oil salesman
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%]
Dec = 4.117 [98.211%]
Dec/Jan = 3.18 [75.859%]
Jan = 2.05 [48.903%]
Jan low = 1.208 [28.817%]
last 6 days = 1.504 [35.878%]
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
Competing interests: No competing interests