Email your comments

1. BGS compromises its objectivity by the strong opposition to NICE recommendations on management of Alzheimer's Disease

2. BGS adopts the CME Journal Geriatric Medicine

3. Comment on our article: "Obituary of the AMT"

Dear Editor

I was very disturbed by the article on NICE and the management of Alzheimer’s disease in the November issue of the BGS Newsletter (http://tinyurl.com/29anwx). I found it a weird and alarmingly unbalanced riposte to the careful appraisal by NICE. To cite just one example, invoking GMC guidance with the implicit threat that failure to prescribe cholinesterase inhibitors might contribute to possible loss of registration is preposterous. Even if it is felt that a reminder is needed that the care of our patients should be our paramount concern, the statement should be balanced by noting the need to weigh the prescribing of a drug with marginal clinical benefit against, for instance, the possibility of side effects and contributions to polypharmacy.

The whole article might well have come directly from the pharmaceutical industry. To find it bearing the imprimatur of the BGS is of great concern. Given the extreme pressures the drug industry is known to be exerting both directly and through interested organisations we should at the very least have been given a comprehensive statement of interests from all those concerned in drawing up this statement. Hopefully you will be correcting this major omission. I can confirm that I have no conflict of interest.

Yours sincerely

David Griffith
Consultant Physician
Care of Older People

See Editor's comment

Top of page

Dear Editor

I support the idea of a CME journal (March editorial refers) provided by the Society. I have little personal experience of Rila publications generally, or this one in particular as I have never organised a subscription to it, but the concept of a journal whose quality is backed and approved by the BGS is sound.

I hope your trial period is successful, and that the approach can be continued.

I would be happy with £15 per year on the subscription, taking the quality as guaranteed.

Kind regards and thanks for your work on behalf of the Society.

Peter Gorman

Reply from the Editor of CME Geriatric Medicine:

“No pressure then” - DF

Top of page

Dear Editor

I am an advanced trainee (fellow) in geriatric medicine in Melbourne, Australia.

Currently I am involved with a project looking at the merits of cognitive screening tests and their settings.

This is further influenced by the recent copyright of the MMSE.

A few in Australia are still enthusiastic about the AMT, and a recent literature search provides articles (from Europe) that can support this proposition. Your obituary to the AMT (BGS March 2005) by John Starr and Alasdair MacLullich gave a good account of what most Geriatricians say, however without any references. Would it be possible for you to either put me in contact with these authors or have you any references to these assertions? I would also be interested to know if there are any position statements or guidelines by your Society regarding choice of cognitive screening tests.

With thanks

(Shame about the cricket)

Michael Rose