, 2-4 in order to repeat the mantra that 'it doesn't work and it'll probably harm you' is bad science that does no-one any good. Might I suggest that a way ahead, in the UK at least, is for Ernst and/or the JRSM to speak to regulatory bodies such as the General Chiropractic Council 4 or the General Osteopathic Council 5 before publication? This is an efficient way to learn about current research in the professions, to realize that that systems are in place for adverse event reporting and to recognize that some popular generalizations about the activities of chiropractors and osteopaths are inaccurate. Lighting the touch-paper of 'an eclectic and combustible mix', to quote the Editor (JRSM 2007;100:299), may attract attention to the Journal, but one wonders at what price?