Here's a short one to make up for the heavyweight Cuba article earlier (Read it, it's good for your soul). Every so often I read the New York Times homepage (as it's about the only U.S. news website that's readable to a British guy), and I just came across this gem of a letter, in response to their article about the Dr. Robert Jarvik affair.

"To the Editor:

Re 'Drug Pitchmen: Actor, Doctor or Pfizer’s Opinion' (Essay, March 4): While I am sympathetic to the desire to ban direct-to-consumer advertisements, I doubt such a ban is constitutionally possible. Instead, why not completely deregulate them? If there was no F.D.A. oversight, then consumers would quickly accept drug ads for what they are: cheap talk by fat cats. Physicians would be restored as the credible source of drug information. This would do more to contribute to the demise of drug advertising than any tightening of the regulations."

Why didn't we think of this before? If you just let the quacks say what they like, the people will quickly realize that they're talking a load of nonsense and ignore them!

I mean, it's not like the U.S. domestic alternative medicine market is worth an estimated $2.7billion, is it?

Now go away and think about what you've said.