Science or flat earthers? The clinical ecologist replies.

I was dismayed that the BMJ should publish the article "Alternative allergy and the GMC,"' which contained defamatory comments about me. It was an improper attempt to rerun a hearing of the General Medical Council in a prejudicial manner. I was found not guilty of all charges relating to my clinical standards, and it is wholly unacceptable to imply that the not guilty verdict ofany court is mistaken. The author of that article, Professor Barry Kay, is deeply opposed to clinical ecology. He and others, including several groups such as the American College ofAllergy and Immunology, and the Califoria Medical Association in the United States and certain members of the Royal College of Physicians, Granada Television, and the charity Healthwatch in the United Kingdom, have all made attacks on it. These attacks have all the hallmarks ofvested interests envious of the apparent success of clinical ecologists with the public. The statement in the BMJ article that I was found guilty of serious professional misconduct in 1982 is simply untrue. In 1992 I was found guilty of attempting to tout for patients by writing an inciting letter to a journalist. I have no wish to minimise this offence. However, I still maintain that the letter, quoted by Kay, was a joke, and no article favouring me appeared in any publication as a result of it.