Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

GPs and junk science

Peter Gooderham
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (544): 918.
Peter Gooderham
Cardiff Law School Museum Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3XJ. E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: gooderhamep@Cardiff.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

I was disappointed by the article by Mike Fitzpatrick, ‘GPs and junk science’.1 He crticises Dr Donegan, who gave expert evidence at the High Court and was criticised by the judge,2 and was also criticised subsequently by judges in the Court of Appeal.3

In fairness to Dr Donegan, it must be recognised, whether one agrees with her or not, that her evidence has been considered by the GMC and she has been exonerated.4

I also note that Dr Fitzpatrick makes controversial statements, with references in footnotes, but in two of five instances his references are in fact to his own work! I strongly believe that this detracts from the academic coherence of his article, and would recommend that he cite the original sources — presumably he has in fact done the research?

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2007.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Fitzpatrick M
    (2007) GPs and junk Science. Br J Gen Pract 57(543):757.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    A&DvB&E, 2003 EWHC 1376 (Fam) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2003/1376.html (accessed 11 Oct 2007).
  3. ↵
    Re B(a child) [2003] EWCA Civ 1148 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1148.html (accessed 11 Oct 2007).
  4. ↵
    1. Dyer O
    (2007) GMC clears GP accused of giving court ‘junk science’ on MMR vaccine. BMJ 335(7617):416–417.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 57 (544)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 57, Issue 544
November 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
GPs and junk science
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
GPs and junk science
Peter Gooderham
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (544): 918.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
GPs and junk science
Peter Gooderham
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (544): 918.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Two-tiered medicine: the increasing disparity in medical care in the UK
  • MRCGP Recorded Consultation Assessment — the hidden fourth construct
  • Prostate-specific antigen testing and opportunistic prostate cancer screening — CAP intervention
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242