Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Editor's Choice

Pills, thrills, and bellyaches

BMJ 2005; 330 doi: (Published 17 February 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:0-h

Rapid Response:

Objection, Your Honour !

Yes Peter, he could have been more wrong.
While I do not agree with some of the policies that have been implemented
by the BMJ as of late, I must say that even a cursory look at ALL other
medical publications will show you that the baby has not been thrown out
with the bathwater.

I remember clearly how you (and others) attacked Richard Smith when
he was editor. Now you attack him for saying that things are better since
he has left.

I do not (and I have said so repeatedly) like the most ridiculous
censorship on the e-mail addresses of the individual writers, I am not in
favour of paying for something that I previously could get for free and,
last but most certainly least, I am quite sick and tired of finding the
same names, re-hashing the same old stuff, akin to whipping a very dead
and tired (in that order) horse, again and again.

Overall, however, what are the glaring faults of the "new" BMJ?

Is the number of posts indicative of some kind of "acceptance", of
quality or relevance among rivals?

I have felt no undue restrictions since Richard Smith left,
and I still count the BMJ as my favourite journal.

After all, my wife isn't all she once was anymore, either.

Competing interests:
None declared

Competing interests: No competing interests

25 February 2005
Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich
Private Practice
Bribie Island, Australia 4507