And for anyone actually interested in the subject rather than blustering their way of of looking foolish in true Hertford fashion..

Lets get boring

Basically, Keith was asking about editorial credibility with professional obligations in healthcare. The act of Parliament the link goes to includes the obligation to register to be able to carry out healthcare. Within that, there is a regulation (Regulation 9 - Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulated activities) Regulations 2010.

This requires providers of healthcare to ensure that treatment reflects published research evidence and guidance issued by the appropriate professional and expert bodies. The Care Quality Commission inspectorate, which Musket was an advisor to up till recently, defines what is appropriate.

The British Medical Journal is deemed appropriate due to their editorial policy. Knowing their editorial policy intimately, my assertion Keith refers to is robust, and has, incidentally been tested in a tribunal. To help my friend "Seaham Cemetry (sic)) here, the only American journal that passes the test is The New England Journal of Medicine.

For info as to why other publications from The USA receive a healthy dose of suspicion, I suggest you read Ben Goldacre's wonderful book, Bad Science.

Incidentally, a recent publication in The BMJ on statins made headlines as a paper was cited in another paper that was not to the standard required. As the reputation and importance of The BMJ is so critical to evidence based healthcare planing and delivery, this small oversight made big news.

Hence Keith's liberal interpretations and fanciful conclusions on anything from WW1 fairy stories to public health statistics would be potentially damaging if a) he had any credibility and b) had a large enough audience. As he dabbles with right wing politics, best nip it in the bud. This is grown up stuff Keith. Stick to British Bulldogs in the playground eh?

TC