[It was possible to post any comment on BMJ website, but it looks like they are suppressing any vaccine criticism now.]
BMJ Rapid Responses was of course the last level
playing field, and it was
an environment in which lies could not really survive. Rather ominously the
on-line letter editor wrote to me in the week that Godlee took over to say
that sorting out Rapid Responses was high on her agenda. This went through
several phases, they published an article suggesting that in order for
Rapid Responses to flourish it would need pruning, and that therefore they
would be raising the standard. Then at the end of June the web editor Tony
Delamothe wrote to me (and similarly to others) saying that I would not be
permitted to post on the topic of vaccine damage again.
Then in November something curious happened. BMJ featured an article by
Michael Fitzpatrick in the wake of Cochrane on MMR entitled 'Why can't the
daily Mail eat humble pie?'
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7525/1148
It was an exceedingly lame article but remarkably before a word had been
written it was billed as a "hot topic" in Rapid Responses. A flood of
letters followed (including a few by myself) in which Fitzpatrick and MMR
were comprehensively trounced.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/331/7525/1148
But it happened also in the few days following this invitation that the
rules of Rapid Responses were finally changed so that the simple
publication criteria of being relevant, non-libellous and not breaching
confidentiality were abandoned. What was going on? Was the episode set up
to show just how dangerous freedom of speech is, before finally knocking it
sternly on the head.
John Stone
http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=359
66 Posts |
|
|||||
Hannah
United Kingdom |
|
|||||
John Stone
United Kingdom |
|
|||||
John Stone
United Kingdom |
|
|||||
Hannah
United Kingdom |
|