Authors' reply to Camelford letters
- 3 June 2000
- Vol. 320 (7248) , 1536
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1536
Abstract
EDITOR—Many of the comments of David, Esmonde, McMillan, and Murray et al are incorrect and overlap.1 Owing to space constraints we have addressed points of fact below and opinion based comments in bmj.com (bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7245/1337#EL1) or in the printed 2 and longer web versions of our paper (bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/807/DC1). Few normative data are published on large series of flash or pattern stimulated visual evoked potentials or the difference in timing between them. In a given subject the flash-pattern difference might be large because of a quicker (shorter) pattern latency than normal, but, to our knowledge, pathologically short pattern evoked responses have not been reported in …Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cerebral dysfunction after water pollution incident in CamelfordBMJ, 2000
- Cerebral dysfunction after water pollution incident in Camelford. Study has several methodological errors.2000
- Disturbance of cerebral function in people exposed to drinking water contaminated with aluminium sulphate: retrospective study of the Camelford water incidentBMJ, 1999
- Clinical application of electrophysiological markers in the differential diagnosis of depression and very mild Alzheimer's disease.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 1996
- Serial visual evoked potential recordings in geriatric psychiatryElectroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 1992
- DISTURBANCE OF CEREBRAL FUNCTION BY ALUMINIUM IN HAEMODIALYSIS PATIENTS WITHOUT OVERT ALUMINIUM TOXICITYThe Lancet, 1989
- Computerized electroencephalography in the evaluation of early dementiaBrain Topography, 1989