Dear Prof - can I ask you to spend a couple of your valuable hours looking over the latest offering from the National Screening Committee on Cardiac Screening to prevent sudden cardiac death in the young. I know this isn’t your field but this process desperately needs scrutiny from independent clinical academics even to examine its rigour. The consultation has now closed, but even when it opened the committee said it wasn’t minded to change its previous decision. The document to support this standpoint is riddled with illogical and circular arguments and misses out numerous recent studies and international guidelines. In particular the screening committee does list in evidence it will consider the ESC or AHA or FIFA position statements of cardiac screening in youth sports. There is no consideration of the JACC 2026 article reviewing outcomes of CRYS 10 year screening of more than 100000 voulnteers. The committe states that there is no evidence that screening can reduce sudden cardiac deaths while ignoring the ESC document on Ventricular arrhythmias which are evidence based consensus guidelines on managing conditions associated with SCD which the screening program would aim to identify the committee says that a screening program may make people anxious and put them off sport but doesn’t offer any evidence of this. They argue there isn’t infrastructure to support screening but ignore the fact this is the case for most screening programs - the workforce and infrastructure have to be provided for the screening to happen. They attempt to equate Israeli screening results with Italian while not acknowledging the Israeli results are based on newspaper reports of deaths in 2 newspapers and the Italian results are based on a comprehensive longstanding registry of all child and juvenile deaths. They draw on concerns from the US about the cost to families of follow up care after screening but don’t acknowledge this is less of an issue here due to the NHS. They don’t even refer to Japan and Taiwan which are the only 2 countries in the world who screen all their youth. Some serious clinical academics need to look at the “work” the committee have done here and at least call out their lack of rigour.