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.
The influence of celebrity and the potential effects on public health is very interesting point and one that has not gone unnoticed. In recent times we’ve seen Russell Brand as an expert witness at a House of Commons select committee on drug addiction, and the father of the late Amy Winehouse regaling details of the cocaine trade to MPs. It seems that not only are we relying on celebrities to promote health campaigns, but that future campaigns (and even possibly legislation!) are being based upon their testimony.
Celebrity involvement in public health campaigns, as Professor Chapman alluded to, can have both positive and negative connotations. They’re are instantly recognisable and with a few clicks could be ‘tweeting’ health promotions to millions, but when the lines between promoting and advising are blurred, will the message still be as reliable?
Re: Does celebrity involvement in public health campaigns deliver long term benefit? Yes
The influence of celebrity and the potential effects on public health is very interesting point and one that has not gone unnoticed. In recent times we’ve seen Russell Brand as an expert witness at a House of Commons select committee on drug addiction, and the father of the late Amy Winehouse regaling details of the cocaine trade to MPs. It seems that not only are we relying on celebrities to promote health campaigns, but that future campaigns (and even possibly legislation!) are being based upon their testimony.
Celebrity involvement in public health campaigns, as Professor Chapman alluded to, can have both positive and negative connotations. They’re are instantly recognisable and with a few clicks could be ‘tweeting’ health promotions to millions, but when the lines between promoting and advising are blurred, will the message still be as reliable?
Competing interests: No competing interests