April

I enjoyed Dan Small’s article entitled “An anthropological examination of an exotic tribe: The Nai­cisyhp” in the January/February, 2011 issue [BCMJ 2011;53:32-34]. 

As a retired Naicisyhp I write se­mor­dnelap but your tattarattat woke me up. Your rotavator stirred up many medical sagas and loads of BS: my medical colleagues sometimes could be “drab as a fool, aloof as a bard.”

I would like to add somewhat to Dr Brian Day’s excellent editorial “Unprofessional professionals” [BCMJ 2011;53:6-7].
I agree 100% with what Dr Day had to say in his editorial. I firmly believe that the main reason that we are in this predicament today is because some years ago we started selecting medical students based primarily on their grades, rather than on the type of human being they are.

Readers should be careful not to mistake Dr Vroom’s lack of knowledge about the medical use of cannabis with a lack of available information (BCMJ 2010;52:436).

Lucas and Capler argue that PubMed has over 12000 studies on cannabis and that a medical cannabis advisory group has dozens of recent peer-reviewed publications that should enlighten me. Quite the contrary. There are, to date, 13032 articles currently listed under cannabis in the publicly accessible interface to Medline (PubMed.org).

I have be­come aware recently of how much personal information is toss­ed about indiscriminately, and how we seem to worry about this less than we should. The advent of social networking, with the technology to allow it, has meant that little personal information stays private for very long.