Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Altman and Bland make perfectly reasonable points in the substantive article, about the non-equivalence of absent evidence and untruth. So it is a pity the Title was truncated, so as not to include the phrase "the same as". For clearly, logically and philosophically, finding no evidence of fairies at the bottom of the garden, having looked, is the prima facie argument that they do not exist.
Absence of evidence is not THE SAME AS evidence of absence
Altman and Bland make perfectly reasonable points in the substantive article, about the non-equivalence of absent evidence and untruth. So it is a pity the Title was truncated, so as not to include the phrase "the same as". For clearly, logically and philosophically, finding no evidence of fairies at the bottom of the garden, having looked, is the prima facie argument that they do not exist.
Competing interests: No competing interests