Letters to the Editor

摘要

SIR -1 am grateful to Drs Smith and Bell,1 and the editors of the Journal for the opportunity to continue this debate.2 One thing that is certain is that conflicting and difficult medical hypotheses cannot be properly examined in the stultifying adversarial atmosphere of the Court of Law, where worn-out arguments are bandied back and forth by a very small band of 'experts'. The only way that these arguments can be rigorously evaluated, and either supported or rebutted, is by open debate in the wider clinical and scientific community.