British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Jack of Kent]

I understand this case is still ongoing.

I am putting together a substantial post on what has happened so far and may happen next. I will put that on my blog and I will also copy it here. This will be in a few days.

Jack

[filippo lippi]

Sounds good.

[Amaris]

I understand this case is still ongoing.

I am putting together a substantial post on what has happened so far and may happen next. I will put that on my blog and I will also copy it here. This will be in a few days.

Jack


Thanks Jack :smiley: I'm thinking I must be psychic :cheesy: I was only wondering about this just before I logged in .... oh no hang on, I saw a link to the case on my favourites list ::)

[Jack of Kent]

Please see my post here: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-bcas-case-against-simon-singh.html

For reasons of libel law, I will not actually reproduce it here as my post repeats the alleged "libel" but in a form which will be protected from law suit.

Best wishes, Jack

[Jack of Kent]

I set out in some detail Simon Singh's defence on my Blog, see:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-putting-chiropractic-on-trial.html

In view of its length, I will not copy it here.

However, I can answer any questions on it...

Best wishes, Jack

[Jack of Kent]

This is a brief primer for all of those coming to this matter for the first time.

1. The British Chiropractic Association published a brochure promoting Chiropractic for young people, especially in respect of six named ailments (including the potentially serious ailments of asthma and frequent ear infections). See http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Happy%20families.pdf (http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Happy%20families.pdf)

2. Simon wrote a "Comment is Free" piece in the Guardian, which amongst other things, criticised the BCA for promoting Chiropractic for such ailments, see http://svetlana14s.narod.ru/Simon_Singhs_silenced_paper.html (Hi She-Liger ;))

3. The news of a libel claim broke in August 2008. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/2570744/Doctors-take-Simon-Singh-to-court.html

4. The blogosphere reacted promptly. The best round up is at: http://holfordwatch.info/2008/08/16/british-chiropractors-join-the-legal-intimidation-party/ and also see Blue Wode's posts at JREF http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4190088#post4190088 (as well as at that thread generally).

5. I have now copies of the Claim Form and Defence, properly gained from the English High Court's court file, see summaries at:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-bcas-case-against-simon-singh.html and http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-putting-chiropractic-on-trial.html

[lost thought]

Hello Jack of Kent,
Please excuse my ignorance but chiropractioners are doctors ???;D:cheesy:
Is the term doctor as in medical or like vicers, priests, math teachers and rock stars. >:D



Lost Thought

[tolman]

Hello Jack of Kent,
Please excuse my ignorance but chiropractioners are doctors ???;D:cheesy:
Is the term doctor as in medical or like vicers, priests, math teachers and rock stars.
I think generally, when we're talking about medicine, the term 'doctor', if used without qualification, is taken to mean "Real, actual doctor of medicine, with proper qualification from accredited institution"

[Mongrel]

Unfortunately doctor is not a protected title as it technically covers any one who has a doctorate. A proper medical doctor will have will generally have MD after their name, although there are some exceptions thanks to a quirky system started in medieval times.


I think generally, when we're talking about medicine, the term 'doctor', if used without qualification, is taken to mean "Real, actual doctor of medicine, with proper qualification from accredited institution"

Yeah, a few quacks have been called up for that (Gillian McKeith being the biggie over here). Due to the nature of the material they were pushing the term doctor could be misconstrued to mean a fully qualified medical doctor giving proper medical advice.

[Blue Wode]

Please excuse my ignorance but chiropractioners are doctors ???;D:cheesy:
FYI, back in May of this year the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint about a UK chiropractic clinic regarding truthfulness. The ASA concluded that because the chiropractic doctors who worked in the clinic did not hold general medical qualifications, the use of the word 'Dr' could mislead. The ASA also considered that the suggested claim 'Doctors of Chiropractic', for use in future ads, did not go far enough to remove the implication that the practitioners held general medical qualifications as well as chiropractic qualifications.

That ASA adjudication was reviewed and updated in September:
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44999.htm

More on the subject from David Colquhoun:


Doctor Who? Deception by chiropractors
July 25th, 2008

The article below is an editorial that I was asked to write for the New Zealand Medical Journal (http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/), as a comment on article in today’s edition about the misuse of the title ‘doctor’ by chiropractors. Titles are not the only form of deception used by chiropractors, so the article looks at some of the others too. For a good collection of articles that reveal chiropractic for what it is, look at Chirobase (http://www.chirobase.org/)

Read on...
http://dcscience.net/?p=241 (http://dcscience.net/?p=241)


Returning to the topic of this thread, for those who may have missed it, here’s the latest from the Quackometer:

Chiropractic Folly and the Nature of Evidence

It looks like the Chiropractors are on a hiding to nothing. That does not mean that I think Singh will automatically win. The legal courtroom is not the place to decide scientific issues: it decides legal ones, and we all know that the law, at times, can be perverse. Rather, we have a game of high stakes now where, if the chiropractors go ahead, we are going to see lots of arguments like the above and the evidence for chiropractic put in the spotlight. Even if by some freak, the chiropractors win, they may well suffer many humiliations in the process. The world is watching, the press is watching and it is going to be a show.

More…
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/11/chiropractic-folly-and-nature-of.html (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/11/chiropractic-folly-and-nature-of.html)


And here’s a new Facebook group that’s just been set up in support of Simon Singh:

For Simon Singh and Free Speech – Against the BCA libel claim
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634&ref=mf (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634&ref=mf)

[lost thought]

Ok so the system started in medieval times when the barbers did surgery is this why "MD" are Dr. and surgeons are Mr. or Prof.:cheesy:
So with this system any one with a half arsed qualification can call themselves Doctor of whatever and assume authority and stature over us mere mortals....:cheesy::undecided:
But isn't this the 21st centuary or did I get off the bus too soon.>:D



Lost Thought

[Mongrel]

Ok so the system started in medieval times when the barbers did surgery is this why "MD" are Dr. and surgeons are Mr. or Prof.:cheesy:
So with this system any one with a half arsed qualification can call themselves Doctor of whatever and assume authority and stature over us mere mortals....:cheesy::undecided:
But isn't this the 21st centuary or did I get off the bus too soon.>:D



Lost Thought
No, it's 'tradition'.

Bizarrely, I agree with it. We're have a slot in the top 5 oldest universities in the world (I think) and our system has evolved - even if that means it's a little wacky at times. It's our heritage and we should be proud :smiley:

Previously (20-30 years ago) if you had a Doctorate you introduced yourself as a "Doctor of <subject>" or Doctor if you were speaking to your peer group, anything else just "wasn't done".

I blame those Humanities students (Bad Science (http://badscience.net/) et al) getting ideas above their station ;))

[Jack of Kent]

A couple of mentions of this case on notable Blogs, both with interesting and insightful comments from readers.

Quackometer:

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/11/chiropractic-folly-and-nature-of.html (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/11/chiropractic-folly-and-nature-of.html)

The philosopher Stephen Law:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/11/simon-sigh-sued-by-british-chiropractic.html

[tolman]

Personally, whatever the history, I think the whole MD->Doctor Surgeon->Mr thing just seems like a pointless affectation.

At best, it's acknowledging a tradition (of medically unqualified surgeons) that stopped a long time ago, for good reason.
It also risks looking rather like one of those things kept on as an oddity in order to distinguish between people who know the tradition and people who don't.

[lost thought]

Sounds good.
"It cannot be right for acupuncturists to validate acupuncture courses, herbalists to validate herbalism courses, homeopaths to validate homeopathy courses and so on. By that logic, we could have a degree in any moronic idea so long as there is a National Morons Association to validate it."


Ok after much thought I have decided that if it is not to expensive can I enroll in to the National Morons Association, I know this may involve some study but I will give it a go that is if it is not to hard I'm not to bright and it would be nice to be able to claim to be a moron not just daft. O0

Lost Thought >:D

[Trinoc]

"It cannot be right for acupuncturists to validate acupuncture courses, herbalists to validate herbalism courses, homeopaths to validate homeopathy courses and so on. By that logic, we could have a degree in any moronic idea so long as there is a National Morons Association to validate it."Ummm ... but ... who validates conventional medicine courses ... ?

[Mojo]

The case has been covered in this week's Private Eye (No 1225, 12-25th December 2008, p.12):
Unusually, the BCA is targeting Singh personally rather than his publisher or newspapers that have carried his articles. But if the BCA thought Singh would be intimidated by the threat of personal bankruptcy, it picked the wrong man to frighten. He is determined to fight. "There is an important issue of freedom of speech at stake," he says.
The case promises to be a clash between evidence-based medicine and its rivals. Singh will be able to quote from dozens of peer-reviewed papers to contradict the BCA's claims.

[Jack of Kent]

The BCA do not appear to have yet filed a Reply at the High Court, which they should have done so by now: see http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/12/on-where-is-bcas-reply.html

As I set out on my Blog (and apologies for replication), this is odd. There are some possible explanations:

1. the BCA have not done a Reply, but this would mean they have (in effect) accepted the Defence as it stands;

2. the BCA have served the Reply on Singh, but not filed it at court, but this would mean their lawyers are perhaps incompetent;

3. the BCA are seeking to keep the Reply as some sort of closed document, but this would mean that they are embarrassed at what their Reply says; or

4. either I or the High Court have made a mistake (never to be ruled out).

I wonder which one it is?

[Jack of Kent]

(With an apology for again copying over from my Blog.)

The motive of the BCA in bringing a libel case has never been clear.

One would think that the appropriate response to Simon Singh's charge that there was not a jot of evidence that Chiropractic did not assist with six children's ailments would be to, er, show the evidence.

Bizarrely, the BCA instead issued libel proceedings before the High Court.

Why did they do this?

Some evidence on this point has been posted on the agreeable and useful Sacral Musings forum. The poster understands:

"My contacts at the BCA are determined to take this case forward on the principle that writing letters to the newspapers and journalists protesting that they are misrepresenting chirorpractic has not changed anything."

So there you have it.

One type of intervention is clearly not working, so a more drastic intervention is made, with no rational connection to the desired outcome, at great expense, and with the potential effect of actually damaging those whom the BCA exist to serve.

An interesting insight into the BCA and their attitude to an evidence-based approach.

[Blue Wode]

Good to see the Face Book group and its links to the latest news/comments on the case continuing to grow:
http://en-gb.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634&ref=mf (http://en-gb.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634&ref=mf)

[Jack of Kent]

Indeed! Nearly 300 people joined within 24 hours of this wonderful plug from Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy, just before Christmas: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/24/uk-quackery-on-trial/

BTW, I now understand that this trial will be WITHOUT a jury (just like the Irving trial). It will be a High Court judge sitting alone, assessing the expert and other evidence.

The trial is likely to be before the summer.

[ianj5150]

Hello Jack of Kent,
Please excuse my ignorance but chiropractioners are doctors ???;D:cheesy:
Is the term doctor as in medical or like vicers, priests, math teachers and rock stars. >:D



Lost Thought

My understanding is that in law, anyone can style themselves 'doctor'. But to be brutally honest, medical practitioners are not technically 'doctors'. The title was specifically intended only for holders of PhDs. Ironically, many people that I know who are PhDs don't use the title.

As for chiropractors, there are two main variants: McTimoney and ACA (American Chiropractic Association). McTimoney chiropractors style themselves 'doctor', ACAs do not. As for the value or otherwise of the treatment, I can only speak from experience: I have on two occasions been physically carried into my McTimoney practitioner, and walked out under my own steam. I'm sure that there is a lot of bull in chiropractic, but there is some very effective treatment as well.

[bruce]

My understanding is that in law, anyone can style themselves 'doctor'. But to be brutally honest, medical practitioners are not technically 'doctors'. The title was specifically intended only for holders of PhDs. Ironically, many people that I know who are PhDs don't use the title.

As for chiropractors, there are two main variants: McTimoney and ACA (American Chiropractic Association). McTimoney chiropractors style themselves 'doctor', ACAs do not. As for the value or otherwise of the treatment, I can only speak from experience: I have on two occasions been physically carried into my McTimoney practitioner, and walked out under my own steam. I'm sure that there is a lot of bull in chiropractic, but there is some very effective treatment as well.

Perhaps being treated by someone medically qualified, would have prevented the re-occurrence of the injury?

Because of an accident during my misspent youth :D, I have a slightly shorter left femur, which has led to a weakness at C4/C5, and a damaged sciatic nerve.
If I have any problems, I see a physiotherapist who has a speciality in sports injuries.

[Dubious Dick]

While not as serious as a short femur a la Bruce, I have also been to a few sports injury specialist physios and they were excellent at diagnosis and remedial work prescription.

The best was a lass called Sue , known as bend 'em and mend 'em, due to her participation in extreme sports. She was also gorgeous.

In fact, now I come to think of it, perhaps there was a large degree of placebo effect in being manipulated by a sexy woman? Anyone got any refs to how effective treatment is based on physical attraction of the practitioner?

If I was not so damn honest I should have claimed the probs were not cleared up so damn quickly!!

[ianj5150]

Perhaps being treated by someone medically qualified, would have prevented the re-occurrence of the injury?

Because of an accident during my misspent youth :D, I have a slightly shorter left femur, which has led to a weakness at C4/C5, and a damaged sciatic nerve.
If I have any problems, I see a physiotherapist who has a speciality in sports injuries.

I smashed up lumbar 4 about 14 years ago and as a result it's rather misshapen and sits at an angle. About seven years ago it decided to move out of place and as I lay on the floor incapacitated, a member of my team made an appointment for me at this chap's practice. I didn't hold out much hope because when the same thing had happened it the past I'd had literally months of physio with practically no effect. This time, three half-hour sessions over the space of a week and I was done. Some months later a friend of mind found herself practically crippled my sciatica - I took her along and the story was the same.

The cause of my second visit was not a re-occurance, but a fall that I had in London that left me with a vertebrae allignment that resembled a car accident. The X-ray that he took showed that L4 was showing signs of breaking up, so he told me to take calcium supplements, which I have done ever since. I've now been without back problems for over three years, which is the longest trouble-free period since I had the original accident.

Now, don't get me wrong here, I am not advocating alternative medicine in the sense that it is commonly understood. I myself used to work for the Medical Research Council and you would be hard-pressed to find a more vocal advocate of scientific medicine than me. There is little doubt that chiropractic can have a fair amount of bull clinging to it, but I think that principally depends upon the individual practitioner. In my experience there certainly seems to be some worthwhile therapy at the core of chiropractic which is at least worthy of open-minded examination.

[dizzyblonde]

My understanding is that in law, anyone can style themselves 'doctor'. But to be brutally honest, medical practitioners are not technically 'doctors'. The title was specifically intended only for holders of PhDs. Ironically, many people that I know who are PhDs don't use the title.

As for chiropractors, there are two main variants: McTimoney and ACA (American Chiropractic Association). McTimoney chiropractors style themselves 'doctor', ACAs do not. As for the value or otherwise of the treatment, I can only speak from experience: I have on two occasions been physically carried into my McTimoney practitioner, and walked out under my own steam. I'm sure that there is a lot of bull in chiropractic, but there is some very effective treatment as well.

Here in the UK, we do not have the American Chiropractic Association, but the British, Scottish, United and McTimoney Chiropractic Associations. Some chiropractors in all these associations do use the title Dr of Chiropractic, others do not. Some have phds, others do not.

[ianj5150]

Here in the UK, we do not have the American Chiropractic Association, but the British, Scottish, United and McTimoney Chiropractic Associations. Some chiropractors in all these associations do use the title Dr of Chiropractic, others do not. Some have phds, others do not.

Thank you, I stand corrected. As it happens, I got it the wrong way around anyway. McTimoneys do not generally style themselves as Dr, ACAs and others often do. I'm sure that some chiropractors are PhD holders, but that must be a tiny minority, surely?

[Blue Wode]

I myself used to work for the Medical Research Council and you would be hard-pressed to find a more vocal advocate of scientific medicine than me. There is little doubt that chiropractic can have a fair amount of bull clinging to it, but I think that principally depends upon the individual practitioner.
UK chiropractors are required by law to provide care that is factual and verifiable and evidence-based, so it is inexcusable that a large number of them still cling to chiropractic’s pseudoscientific subluxation-based nonsense.

As for the Medical Research Council, didn’t it conduct the chiro-friendly Meade studies in the 1990s and the BEAM trial in 2004? You can find the studies critiqued here:
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=26449&postcount=203 (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=26449&postcount=203)

And it’s worth adding the following to the critiques of the Meade study:


People familiar with clinical tests of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for back pain were puzzled by the outcome of the British study by Meade, et al, (Brit Med J, 300:1431-37, 1990) which found chiropractic care to be more effective in the long term than hospital management (for chronic back pain sufferers only). Studies designed to test SMT against other modalities have consistently found that although SMT may produce more rapid relief there are no differences over the long term (for a review see Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, 179:62-70, 1983). The Meade study did not test SMT against other modalities but merely compared hospital with chiropractic care in which a flock of modalities were employed. It did not even equalize the number of treatment sessions nor length of time under care. The most likely answer to this anomalous finding lies in patient satisfaction.

More…
http://www.ncahf.net/nl/1991/1-2.html (http://www.ncahf.net/nl/1991/1-2.html)

[Blue Wode]

Here in the UK, we do not have the American Chiropractic Association, but the British, Scottish, United and McTimoney Chiropractic Associations. Some chiropractors in all these associations do use the title Dr of Chiropractic, others do not. Some have phds, others do not.
Whether a UK chiropractor is a plain DC, or a DC/PhD, his or her ‘doctor’ title could still easily dupe patients into thinking that they are being treated by a medical doctor.

It’s worth noting that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently upheld a complaint about a UK chiropractic clinic regarding truthfulness. It concluded that because the chiropractic doctors who worked in the clinic did not hold general medical qualifications, the use of the word 'Dr' could mislead. It also considered that the suggested claim 'Doctors of Chiropractic', for use in future ads, did not go far enough to remove the implication that the practitioners held general medical qualifications as well as chiropractic qualifications.
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44999.htm (http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44999.htm)

So even a chiropractor with a PhD could still, in the eyes of the ASA, mislead the public.

[Blue Wode]

Via Simon Singh’s newsletter No.30 (not yet online) http://www.simonsingh.net/Newsletter.html (http://www.simonsingh.net/Newsletter.html)



Chiropractic libel case – quick update

The trial date is still uncertain, but it will probably be in the early summer of 2009. I can, however, confirm that the trial will not involve a jury, because of its complicated nature, and instead the final decision will be made by the judge. The best place for news on the case is the Facebook group, which monitors various blogs and articles, and which now has almost 2,000 supporters:

For Simon Singh and Free Speech - Against the BCA Libel Claim
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634 (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634)

[Jack of Kent]

The English High Court has ordered that a "preliminary hearing" take place between the British Chiropractic Association and Simon Singh.

This preliminary hearing will probably take place in the next two to three months, and it will determine exactly how this case will be heard at full trial.

The High Court's rulings at this preliminary hearing will have an important impact on the nature and scope of the defence - or defences - which Simon Singh will have to mount.

For further details see: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/03/bca-v-singh-first-court-hearing-is.html

I am happy to answer any queries etc here.

Best wishes,

Jack of Kent

[Jack of Kent]

Hi all,

I understand the date for the High Court preliminary hearing of British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh will be on Thursday 7 May 2009.

The hearing may take more than one day.

For background, see:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/03/bca-v-singh-first-court-hearing-is.html

and

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/03/bca-v-singh-date-set-for-first-hearing.html (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/03/bca-v-singh-date-set-for-first-hearing.html)

Best wishes,

Jack of Kent

[Blue Wode]

Preliminary hearing is today.

Jack of Kent to be reporting on it via Twitter and his blog:
http://twitter.com/jackofkent
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/

Good luck to Simon Singh and his team.

[Blue Wode]

Very disappointing updates from Jack of Kent...
http://twitter.com/jackofkent (http://twitter.com/jackofkent)

I believe the hearing was before Mr Justice Eady.

[Croydon Bob]

I can't access Twitter. Summary?

[Blue Wode]

I can't access Twitter. Summary?
See here:
http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8946

[Croydon Bob]

Not good.

[Admin]

English High Court has ruled Simon Singh has to prove that BCA was deliberately dishonest.How is it possible to prove that they were deliberately dishonest?

All the BCA have to claim is that even if what they said was false they believed it was true - so where is the evidence going to come from that can prove their intention?

Unless the BCA had some written documentation stating that they knew their claims were false but were going to make them anyway, I can't see how it's possible to prove someone's intention.

The highest court in the land and they're making a ruling where someone has to prove an unfalsifiable claim! :undecided:

[Mulder]

Sometimes people claim they have evidence for the paranormal that would be good enough for any court of law. They are often right. It just wouldn't be good enough for science.

[Admin]

Sometimes people claim they have evidence for the paranormal that would be good enough for any court of law. They are often right. It just wouldn't be good enough for science.

Hopefully Jack will be on later to clarify what this means in law. I'm thinking in terms of tangible evidence but perhaps there's another way in law.

[Edinburgh-Skeptics]

I do worry about the future implications of events such as these. From reading the article I find it difficult (though I'm not a legal mind) to see how Simon Singh is accusing the BCA of intentionally dishonesty.

I think we need to readdress the libel laws. Too many times skeptics are being taken to court for "libel". The new regulations last year relating to consumer protection made the medium community sit up and run around for a while before they came up with their legal disclaimers you now see underneath most adverts for psychic shows such as "The Three Mediums".

Surely these laws can pass over to cover all claims of the paranormal and pseudoscience?

How many skeptics in the public eye haven't been sued? A certain Israeli bender springs to mind.

[Blue Wode]

More details emerging...


The English High Court has ruled that science writer Simon Singh (http://www.simonsingh.net/), must show that the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) was deliberately dishonest in promoting chiropractic as a treatment for various children’s ailments.

Mr Justice Eady ruled, with notes apparently written prior to today’s preliminary hearing, that an article by Singh, published in the Guardian should be classified as a ’statement’ and added that by use of the word ‘bogus’ Singh had inferred he believed the BCA had intent to convey dishonest claims to the British public.

In light of this ruling the matter may not go to trial. From Singh’s standing he does not believe the BCA had intent to deceive and therefore cannot prove this.

Mr Justice Eady refused an appeal on the judgement but Index on Censorship has been told that Singh still will not stand down, and intends to pursue his defence by going to the court of appeals. If this is rejected he may then go to Strasbourg and appeal to the European Human Rights Commission.

Costs of £23,000, relating to the preliminary hearing, have been awarded to the BCA.

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/05/07/eady-rules-against-singh-in-chiropractic-defamation-case/

[tolman]

It seems pretty incredible that to defend against a libel accusation, someone has to prove something that they didn't even allege in the first place.

Surely, if it comes to the word 'bogus', in common modern usage, 'a bogus claim' is often taken to mean one that is simply unfounded, without necessarily implying an intent to deceive on the part of the person making it.
That's fairly solidly demonstrated by the fact that a bogus claim doesn't seem to become any less bogus if it becomes second or third-hand - it's not the veracity of the person making it that is contested by calling a claim bogus, but the veracity of the claim.

If there is ambiguity about the meaning of a single word, surely the interpretation should err on the side of the person accused of libel, unless they've made it clear from what else they wrote that there was only one possible interpretation?

My interpretation of what I read was that Singh was merely accusing them of the perfectly laudable practice of making claims about their abilities to treat the medical complaints of children which were unsupported by good scientific evidence, (claims which then for some as-yet-unexplained reason disappeared from their own website).

Let's just hope that all the journalists out there who don't like the idea of being sued by people who just want to silence them don't do anything vindictive, like diving all over the next case (or digging up an old case) of someone suffering serious side-effects after chiropractic treatment and giving them maximum coverage.
That would be terrible, especially as it would probably do much more damage to the BCA and its members than Sigh was ever likely to have done, and make their libel case an obvious mistake.

[Blue Wode]

BCA statement just released:


7 MAY 2009

In April 2008 Simon Singh published an article in the Guardian newspaper and on Guardian Online in the course of which he wrote that:

“the British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.”

The BCA asked Dr Singh to retract his allegations because they are factually wrong, defamatory and damaging to the BCA’s reputation. Dr Singh refused to do so.

In July 2008, the BCA issued libel proceedings against Dr Singh. He defended his position and the case has been continuing.

At a hearing on 7 May 2009 in the Royal Courts of Justice before Mr Justice Eady, Dr Singh’s submissions that what he published was not defamatory and that it was fair comment were roundly rejected by the Judge. Mr Justice Eady held:

1. that what Dr Singh had published was defamatory of the BCA in exactly the way the BCA had claimed; and
2. that Dr Singh’s allegations were not comment but were serious defamatory allegations of fact against the BCA.

Dr Singh’s application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused by the Judge. Dr Singh has indicated, however, that he proposes to challenge that decision at the Court of Appeal and he now has three weeks to lodge that challenge.

Mr Justice Eady ordered Dr Singh to pay the BCA’s costs of the hearing within 28 days.
After the hearing BCA President Dr Tony Metcalfe said, “The BCA brought this claim to preserve its integrity and reputation. I’m delighted that the Judge has vindicated the BCA’s position.”

The trial will conclude later this year.

http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/Press%20Statement%2007%2005%2009.pdf

[Blue Wode]

One of the first reports from inside the court room:
http://godknowswhat.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/singh-case-update-a-real-pain-in-the-neck/

[bindeweede]

Jack has posted his comments.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/
(http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/)

[Matt]

Just been catching up on Swift.

Two things caught my eye.

One they've linked to a mirror of the offending article (http://svetlana14s.narod.ru/Simon_Singhs_silenced_paper.html) in a comment that fails to capture the implications of the ruling.

Two, they have another article (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/544-shouting-fire.html) which calls some medical claims bogus. This time it's the anti vaxxers who are in the firing line.

It's an interesting example as the main thrust of the article is that those creating the scares against vacinations are thoroughly convinced of their beliefs yet that is no excuse. Also it predates Justice Eady's definition of "Bogus".

My concern is that some have stated that Simon's usage is clearly defined in the subsequent paragraph.


I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions

I think there may be some confirmation bias going on. Substituting Eady's definition of fraudulent the paragraph still parses. Doing so we read this paragraph as meaning that Singh know the chiropractors are fraudulent by induction. He knows one person who trained as a chiropracter and realised that there was no evidence for these treatments and therefore all chiropracters must know that these treatments don't work and in offering them nonetheless are comitting fraud.

We know that's not what Simon meant, we know (1) that's not what he believes as we've read his wider works and (2) a man with his his reasoning skills would balk at an induction from a sample of just one.

However the meaning of writing may not necessarily coincide with the author's intention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author

Clearly libel law takes a similar view allowing the judge to decide upon the meaning of a sentence in areas of ambiguity, rather than the author. IN this case I don't think that justice Eady is correct in dscerning the inferrence that the common man would take from this but parhaps I'm suffering from false concensus bias. That's why finding another article which so clearly and unambiguously uses the word bogus whilst explicitly stating that there's no intention to decieve was so encouraging.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

BCA statement just released:

And of course the BCA statement is very careful not to talk about any of the evidence that Singh dismisses.

23 grand, just like that.

[Jack of Kent]

Hello everyone

Sorry to be late getting back on the forum.

This is an awful, dismal ruling. It is also, in my view, wrong. Flatly wrong.

Simon Singh is going to take some time to think what to do next: he has three weeks to appeal.

Will post more news as I get it.

[Blue Wode]

More from Jack of Kent this morning:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-should-simon-singh-do-next.html

[Pebble]

This ruling means in effect that chiropracters and any other person or group believing that what they do works, are entitled to 'treat' children, and that no one may warn the public of the potential dangers associated with allowing these charlatans near their children, except using terms and phrases that are unlikely to fully understood by most.

This first, moves the burden of proof away from those administering care to those aware that have evidence that what they are doing is useless or dangerous - paediatricians can't be too happy about that.
It then adds a second layer, requiring proof of fraud. So it is a sufficient defense when harming children to be ignorant!

Now given that most paedophiles believe that what they are doing is good for the child, should this interpretation of the law not be vigorously rejected.

As has been shown recently, the parliament cannot regulate itself, only the harsh light of public exposure has forced them to act sensibly. Should the same approach now be used for the courts. Why should judges judge judges? How could one whip up a newspaper campaign to ridicule this ruling? What do the Royal Colleges think?

[davidrodway]

"Simon never meant that the BCA were consciously dishonest and he can't defend that position"

Could he not? He could point out the dearth of scientific literature to support their claims and that as an organisation supposedly of health care practitioners they should surely be aware of the literature, and that publishing claims they know to be unsupported is therefore conciously dishonest.

[Trinoc]

I think David has a point. If I claimed chiropractic could cure earache, you could just assume I'm an idiot, but an organisation set up specifically to promote the credibility of chiropractic surely has a duty of care (or whatever it's called in legalese) to check its facts to a greater degree of accuracy.

[tkingdoll]

"Simon never meant that the BCA were consciously dishonest and he can't defend that position"

Could he not? He could point out the dearth of scientific literature to support their claims and that as an organisation supposedly of health care practitioners they should surely be aware of the literature, and that publishing claims they know to be unsupported is therefore conciously dishonest.

You'd have to prove the opposite though. You'd have to prove they are aware of the research and promote chiro knowing it isn't effective. That's not possible to prove in a million years, and even more importantly, it probably isn't true and isn't what Simon ever claimed.

[Trinoc]

Doesn't the BCA's status as a professional organisation (the basis for its claim that it can be defamed) place on it a duty to be aware of the relevant research?

[tkingdoll]

Doesn't the BCA's status as a professional organisation (the basis for its claim that it can be defamed) place on it a duty to be aware of the relevant research?

Morally, yes, but legally, I suspect not. I don't think it's relevant to this case though. If patients were suing, then it would be relevant because it shows incompetence but that's not the same as showing deception.

In other words, even if you could prove they were aware of the research, you couldn't prove that they'd deliberately decided to act against it (i.e. had committed fraud). After all, the available research isn't bound in law or anything. Chiropractic is legal, so it doesn't really matter if the BCA has read all of the available research or not, you still couldn't prove that they believe chiro is bogus but promote it anyway. It's highly unlikely that they believe that. It's highly likely that they and their members believe 100&#37; in chiro and promote it on that basis, so they haven't committed fraud either way. That's what's so frustrating about this case - Simon has never said he doesn't believe BCA believe their own claims, he's never said they're being fraudulent, but the judge interpreted his article that way anyway.

It's a bit like if you said "tkingdoll smells bad" and I sued you, and the judge ruled that in order for you to win, you have to prove that I believe deodorant is satanic, even though that was never your claim. OK, that's a crap analogy but I have been working all day on a Sunday.

I ain't no lawyer anyway, I'm probably wrong about most of this :D

[Trinoc]

OK, enough barrack-room lawyering from us ... I'll wait and see what Jack thinks.

[tkingdoll]

OK, enough barrack-room lawyering from us ... I'll wait and see what Jack thinks.

Aw, thats no fun though. I love idly speculating with disclaimers. >:D

[Trinoc]

Aw, thats no fun though. I love idly speculating with disclaimers. >:D
Oh, all right! :smiley:

I don't have any other silly ideas right now, but when I get any you'll be the first to know ...

[davidrodway]

You'd have to prove the opposite though. You'd have to prove they are aware of the research and promote chiro knowing it isn't effective. That's not possible to prove in a million years, and even more importantly, it probably isn't true and isn't what Simon ever claimed.


Would you though ? Or could you just show that they SHOULD have been aware of the research? The BCA are then in the position of having to claim that they are not or should not be up to date with research - if the judge agrees with them on that they may win the case but it rather scuppers their credility to pronounce on health care matters in the future. So the BCA might then win the case but lose all reputation .

That would seem logical, but, logical of course isnt always legal.

Still , I suppose it is not as subtle as that anyway - the headlines would still proclaim "BCA WIN". Although maybe not, as Simon is a journsalist. But that is another story.

[Matt]

I still think it's worth looking for denialist style response the BCA has made in a letters to the editor format. We may not show that they believe that the studies disproving chiropractic for athsma etc are actually true but we might at least be able to show dishonesty in a wider sense.

[bindeweede]

Somehow, I stumbled across this about Mr Justice Eady. No idea if it is interesting or what.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/profiles/3453978/Profile-Mr-Justice-Eady-defender-of-the-nations-privacy.html

[chaggle]

Somehow, I stumbled across this about Mr Justice Eady. No idea if it is interesting or what.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/profiles/3453978/Profile-Mr-Justice-Eady-defender-of-the-nations-privacy.html

This bit could be interesting


"He is very sensitive to criticism; in one recent case he was heavily criticised by the Law Lords when they overturned one of his rulings in a libel case involving the Wall Street Journal, and he was deeply hurt by that."

But on the other hand


"The fact that he has not been promoted just gives him even more power. His decisions are rarely successfully appealed, a fact which speaks for itself, and he has such seniority within the High Court that he will carry on shaping the law in a way that few other judges can."

[Blue Wode]

An update from Simon Singh, Sunday 17 May, 2009
(Via his e-newsletter – not yet available on his website http://www.simonsingh.net/ (http://www.simonsingh.net/) )

I apologise for the silence since last week’s bad news at the High Court, but at last I have been able to take stock of the situation and write a quick update.

It has been over a year since I wrote an article for the Guardian newspaper (19 April 200eight) about chiropractic, its effectiveness in relation to childhood conditions and its risks. The British Chiropractic Association then decided to sue me for libel and I have spent most of the last twelve months building a defence.

Prior to the full trial it was agreed that it would be helpful for the actual meaning of the article to be established in a preliminary hearing. On Thursday 7 May 2009 the preliminary hearing took place at the Royal Courts of Justice in front of Justice David Eady. It is not an understatement to say that his ruling was, from my point of view, disastrous and misguided.

The core of my article, and the aspect that I thought was mainly under scrutiny, suggested that chiropractors lacked evidence to support their treatment of several childhood conditions. I therefore called these treatments “bogus”.

The judge held that merely using the phrase “happily promotes bogus treatments” meant that I was stating, as a matter of fact, that the BCA was being consciously dishonest in promoting chiropractic for treating the children’s ailments in question, in that they were promoting treatments they knew were ineffective.

Although I maintain my position that such chiropractic treatment for childhood conditions lacks any significant scientific basis and that chiropractic in general carries risks, I do not and never have meant to imply that chiropractors are deliberately and dishonestly offering such treatments. My view is that, for example, they may not know the scientific evidence, they may not understand it or they may have a biased interpretation of the evidence – I don’t know. More generally, I share the commonly held view that alternative therapists who offer treatments unsupported by reasonable evidence are deluded rather than deliberately dishonest. I think that Justice Eady has failed to interpret the meaning of the article in the way that a reasonable reader would understand it.

The current ruling by Justice Eady means that I stand very, very little hope of a successful defence at trial, so going to trial is not a realistic option. My two reasonable options are to:

1. Settle now, which will cost in excess of £100,000 (the vast majority of these costs would be to cover the BCA’s legal bills, as opposed to damages).

2. Submit an appeal in relation to the meaning of my article, hoping for a more reasonable ruling on meaning and then fight the case on what the article really meant.

I have until May 28 to lodge an application to appeal. I am seriously thinking about this option and am discussing it with my lawyers. It would increase my legal costs and eat up more time, but on the other hand I think I deserve the chance to fight my case on a reasonable interpretation of my article.

Moreover, this case demonstrates the chilling effect that the libel laws can have journalism in general, and science journalism in particular. The events of last week impact far beyond the author of one article on the subject of chiropractic.

Last Thursday was a miserable day, but I like to think I am as resilient as a Tigger. I am certainly in good spirits. In particular, family, friends, readers and bloggers have all cheered me up.

Thanks also for your supportive messages. I will try to reply to emails, but please forgive me if I don’t. The best option is to post to the Facebook site (see below) – I do regularly read the wall and it frequently makes me smile. I should also point out that the enormous support that I have received from around the world has certainly made me more enthusiastic about lodging an appeal (if this turns out to be a practical option). Scientists, journalists, comedians, rationalists, skeptics, bloggers, politicians and those who care about free speech have all expressed their outrage at last week’s ruling.

The next event that will interest those following the case is a public meeting on Monday 18 May at 6.30pm at Penderel’s Oak Pub (283 High Holborn, WC1V 7HP). Speakers will include me, the amazing Nick Cohen, the fantastic Dave Gorman and the heroic Evan Harris MP.

If you cannot make it to the meeting, then please help by letting others know about the case, the ruling and the possibility of an appeal. If there is an appeal, then it would be great to launch it upon a strong tide of public support.

If you want to find out more about the case (or want to inform others) then below are some useful links. This includes mainstream media coverage in New Scientist, Nature and the Economist.

Thanks again to everyone who has been so supportive.

Simon (still smiling) Singh.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634 (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634)
For Simon Singh and Free Speech - Against the BCA Libel Claim
This seems to be the best place for keeping up with the latest news and developments. It contains links to various blogs and articles commenting on the case. Joining the group is a great way to show your support.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/ (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/)
Jack of Kent’s blog is well informed and written from an expert’s point of view. Recent update postings include:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-astonishingly-illiberal.html (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-astonishingly-illiberal.html)
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-should-simon-singh-do-next.html (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-should-simon-singh-do-next.html)

Googling words such as SIMON SINGH, BCA, LIBEL will take you to lots of blogs and articles about the libel case. Google news is particularly helpful (search “SIMON SINGH”, and you can also then click on the blog option.
http://news.google.co.uk/news (http://news.google.co.uk/news)

Coverage
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227086.200-comment-dont-criticise-or-well-sue.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227086.200-comment-dont-criticise-or-well-sue.html)
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.479.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.479.html)
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13643973 (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13643973)


For another superb round-up, see here:
http://godknowswhat.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/simon-singh-case-response-roundup/ (http://godknowswhat.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/simon-singh-case-response-roundup/)

[DrS]

Thanks for this Blue Wode. It's good to see that Simon Singh still has a lot of fight in him. At this point, I'm pleased to see that he's considering an appeal on the finding of the preliminary hearing rather than simple settlement. As he says, this has impact far beyond just this particular case.

[Admin]

From Simon Singh's newsletter:


The judge held that merely using the phrase “happily promotes bogus treatments” meant that I was stating, as a matter of fact, that the BCA was being consciously dishonest in promoting chiropractic for treating the children’s ailments in question, in that they were promoting treatments they knew were ineffective.


As I see it the offending word might be "happily [promotes]" rather than "bogus [treatments]".

Stating that the BCA "promotes bogus treatments" might have been acceptable whereas stating that the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments" left him open to the accusation of defamation: the word 'happily' adds a value judgement to an otherwise factual statement.

I don't know, but it might come down to the use of that simple adjective.

Anyway, I suspect the word 'happily' might have been a lot more important than the word 'bogus' in the judge's decision.

[bindeweede]

Worth a try, I suppose................

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/reformlibellaws/#detail

[Trinoc]

Worth a try, I suppose................

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/reformlibellaws/#detail
I look forward to seeing how they word their "We are not going to do anything" response this time.

[Mojo]

I look forward to seeing how they word their "We are not going to do anything" response this time.
Something starting along the lines of "the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has recently conducted an inquiry into press standards, privacy and libel...", most likely.

[Blue Wode]

First online posting giving a good summary of tonight's meeting in the pub:

Simon Singh hopes to appeal chiropracty libel ruling, but can't confirm yet
http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2009/05/simon-singh-hopes-to-appeal-chiropracty.html

[Trinoc]

An excellent meeting for sure, and I think we established (as much as we can without a court ruling) that while the judge ruled in the idiotic idea that the case is about the honesty of the BCA's intentions, he also ruled out the scientific evidence as part of the case. This means, in essence, that the scientific evidence is back in the melting pot, regardless of whether Simon proceeds with the legal stuff or not. Jack of Kent said that the BCA had been challenged to provide the scientific evidence to support their claims, and they should be kept under pressure to do this whatever the outcome of the honesty issue in the courts.

The wider issue brought up by Nick Cohen is the shambolic state of our libel laws that allows, for example, a wanted criminal on the run from one country residing in another country (neither country being the UK) can sue a magazine, also not in the UK, for defamation for reporting the crimes for which that person has already confessed. This can not go on, and I hope every MP in the country gets showered with requests to do something about it.

[Croydon Bob]

An excellent meeting for sure,

It felt like the most important SitP meeting ever. It was great just to have been there. There was lots of support for Simon however he chooses to proceed.

[Blue Wode]

A message from lecanardnoir:


A Carnival of Bogus* Chiropractic

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

One of the side effects of the BCA vs Chiropractic libel case is that there are a growing number of people who now realise that Chiropractic is bogus*. Even though Simon Singh may well have suffered a set back from a judge who according to the law can define words as he sees fit, we are now seeing increasing exposure to the bogus* practices of the chiropractic trade.

One way to show the ridiculousness of the legal decision and of chiropractic would be to have a little blog carnival on the bogus* nature of chiropractic claims and practices, and so I suggest that sceptical bloggers and writers help out by doing the following…

1. Find a chiropractic claim from an association or practitioner and examine the evidence for it critically. Look at Cochrane reviews (if they exist), papers and the basic science behind the claims. Write to the claimant involved and ask them for their evidence for their claims.

2. If the evidence for effectiveness is lacking, call it a bogus* treatment.

3. Let me know what you have written and I will do a round up in a few weeks. Email me or twitter me @lecanardnoir.

4. Spread the word. Twitter like crazy.

I am on hols at the mo, so can I suggest all entries are emailed to me (see my ‘about’ pages) so that the carnival will appear y June 5th.

I think with not much effort we could turn the chiropractic google space into a web of critical articles. That would be a small step in the right direction.

* deliberate deception not implied.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/05/carnival-of-bogus-chiropractic.html

[polomint38]

One of the side effects of the BCA vs Chiropractic libel case is that there are a growing number of people who now realise that Chiropractic is bogus*

This error already pointed out by Jack on quackometer.

[Blue Wode]

Video of Simon Singh meeting in Penderels Oak pub last night (9.25mins):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc77Y-XBlj0

[Trinoc]

Has anyone been able to find the supposed defence of Simon Singh from Sense about Science that we were told was available here?

http://bogus.senseaboutscience.org.uk/

When I go to this address all I get is their home page trumpeting their defence of GM, nuclear power and the usual suspects, and typing "Simon Singh", or just "Singh" into the search box produces no relevant results that I can see.

Is SaS genuinely making a contribution to Simon's cause, or are they just jumping on the bandwagon to get publicity for themselves?

[tkingdoll]

Is SaS genuinely making a contribution to Simon's cause, or are they just jumping on the bandwagon to get publicity for themselves?

My understanding is that SaS is co-ordinating aspects of the campaign, including the new defence fund. I can't remember exactly what was said about it at Monday's meeting but Simon introduced Tracy from SaS so he's obviously comfortable with their contribution. I don't think they can be accused of 'jumping on the bandwagon to get publicity for themselves' given this case has attracted almost no mainstream publicity and given there is no evidence to suggest that that is their motive.

[Trinoc]

My understanding is that SaS is co-ordinating aspects of the campaign, including the new defence fund. I can't remember exactly what was said about it at Monday's meeting but Simon introduced Tracy from SaS so he's obviously comfortable with their contribution. I don't think they can be accused of 'jumping on the bandwagon to get publicity for themselves' given this case has attracted almost no mainstream publicity and given there is no evidence to suggest that that is their motive.
OK, maybe something will appear on the web site soon. It just seemed a bit odd to set up a "bogus" sub-domain which only directs to the main home page, when it has been advertised at places like SitP as a new web area for Simon's campaign, so I assumed there must be some error in setting it up.

If Simon is happy with SaS organising the defence fund, I'm happy with that ... but regarding SaS in general I find their libertarian connections a bit dubious, and also the way for a long time any criticisms added to their Wikipedia page were rapidly edited out by SaS themselves, leaving only an anodyne description of their good works. I see the Wiki page now has a few negative points, but it wouldn't surprise me if I find they have disappeared in a few days.

[Blue Wode]

Another update from Jack of Kent:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-what-advertising-standards.html

Don't forget that you can track developments here:
http://godknowswhat.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/simon-singh-case-response-roundup/

[tkingdoll]

OK, maybe something will appear on the web site soon. It just seemed a bit odd to set up a "bogus" sub-domain which only directs to the main home page, when it has been advertised at places like SitP as a new web area for Simon's campaign, so I assumed there must be some error in setting it up.

If Simon is happy with SaS organising the defence fund, I'm happy with that ... but regarding SaS in general I find their libertarian connections a bit dubious, and also the way for a long time any criticisms added to their Wikipedia page were rapidly edited out by SaS themselves, leaving only an anodyne description of their good works. I see the Wiki page now has a few negative points, but it wouldn't surprise me if I find they have disappeared in a few days.

The only negative stuff I've heard about them is that some of their funding comes from 'big pharma', but I'm going to remain skeptical about whether that's a problem until such a time as they appear to show bias, if that ever happens. I haven't worked with them so haven't had need to investigate, but I'm sure our paths will cross so it'll be interesting to see what I can find out. That said, most organisations have their enemies and critics so it may just be hot air.

[Nukapai]

Thought this was interesting:

(Via Ben Goldacre's twitter feed)

General Chiropractic Council admit chiropractors may be ‘bogus’: amusingly, given the ricockulous BCA libel case http://rly.cc/Lyi3b

[Matt]

OK, maybe something will appear on the web site soon.

A little trick you can do if you run you won DNS servers

http://trinocallsareubdomainsredirectedon.senseaboutscien ce.org.uk/

So it doesn't look like that's done anything specific for bogus at this stage.

I don't know why they've mentioned it if there nothign there yet though.

[Trinoc]

A little trick you can do if you run you won DNS servers

http://trinocallsareubdomainsredirectedon.senseaboutscien ce.org.uk/
I thought is might be some sort of placeholder, but I didn't think to try something completely ... ummm ... bogus to test it.

The person who announced it at the meeting was very careful about spelling out the domain, and seemed to emphasise getting it exactly right rather more than I would normally think necessary ... but I've tried all the combinations I can think of - .com, .org, .org.uk, .co.uk. The ones with ".org" redirect to the main page at ".org.uk", and the others go to placeholders for the domain sellers (didn't SaS think to bag all of the alternatives?). Interestingly, the placeholder for bogus.senseaboutscience.com includes a link (http://bogus.senseaboutscience.com/Alternative_Medicine.cfm?fp=3SvJXFhvUL1J%2Bhrk3mJ6 %2FIjrl%2FfbQhIDS3S17TJvPW%2B%2BzCNpkrhglji%2Fjd9P d1zgKDe%2FElJEzNjnxb6Yo40ISw1NG3blHeJ0yzQmYytWF5gW 8Oe70AhtCdWh%2FFy7%2BvEBbEIQgVFgII606tJJtloTM9TNV6 sv4ThxLTIFg1e5UMs%3D&pt=2&sp=2&lpt=1243336944&yep=%2FSvJXFguU7BT%2Bx2n5GR9%2BoxmquNIM%2FT%2B7xpF mXjeI%2Ffe4p970qf0KZaF2DePkiIcfPnul8BJ4ddlWvqliP97 0XAk7ugz5%2BqL3sF72NvptgoHcVfG9KWK3sYHyDT0qhuXzHlg m6WXELoqeDN7bA3KJ9wlUAtqe89%2BE6RvdzjsZD%2FFnX9ZyU HCCgp0gIlkm7qX4ie8t%2ByZUv2wS5xDr0L1l7fqROWNvgpMum IUr23cjAl3e34Hxg7uUyDAoxuAMOR4gaDNOE8cD7xEwaBSmxsI G3WstgCUNqh7Z3YKrPbHt4vLi6MZ9z%2FqGxM0jCGZX5MEBUv% 2BeZhTzBXw9YG5apfQu6D25DejaWdUjAThtYV5ZSehGHdhRbIE a9UdxgFigPgaQBxtBSEH4Z0TJV3LzvkuI8thtzSIlR3AM83FRK LP1aRmUcd5uCV6SxdfT944NSimyRrAVPVsyhRAnSLuD3Wlaqqz 7rBDNZpIvuiYKg%3D%3D&&kt=4&bd=1%23960%231280%231%230) to adverts for alternative medicine!

[Blue Wode]

The latest from the BCA:



FURTHER UPDATE ON BCA v SIMON SINGH


26 May 2009

Since 7 May 2009, when in the Royal Courts of Justice Mr Justice Eady provided his ruling on BCA v Singh, there has been significant media interest in the trial.

The BCA has, until now, declined to comment, choosing to let the legal process take its course. Much criticism has been levelled at the BCA for not entering a debate, criticism which is in itself misguided.

The law exists to protect citizens and organisations from falsehoods and the BCA used the law because of the damage caused by Simon Singh's Guardian article.

The case brought against Dr Singh was simply a case to establish a libel contained in his article; it never was, and still is not a "freedom of speech" issue.

Had Dr Singh simply apologised and retracted his remarks, as the BCA originally requested, any action would have been averted – he has chosen not to do so in the face of overwhelming evidence. Therefore an apology continues to be sought along with damages and costs.

The words sued upon stated that the BCA deliberately promotes fraudulent chiropractic treatments to children with certain conditions/symptoms in the knowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support their efficacy. This is completely untrue.

In his Defence Dr. Singh stated that the BCA promotes treatments which are positively dangerous. But the reality is that Dr. Singh cannot justify his stance and has not made any attempt to do so.

In the course of this litigation the BCA has disclosed to the Courts a plethora of medical evidence showing that the treatments work and that the risk associated with the treatments is minimal, if indeed any risk exists at all.

On 3 November 2008, Dr. Singh was asked by the BCA to state whether he had read 27 different publicly-available research papers before writing his article. If Dr. Singh had read the research he could not have held the view he expressed in the Guardian unless he simply chose to ignore the facts.

To this day Dr. Singh has refused to answer the question as to whether he had adequately researched his article by reading the source materials.

Rather than focusing on the facts of the case, Dr. Singh’s Defence is now based on maintaining that he didn’t ‘literally’ mean what he actually said, instead claiming the words were a mere ‘rhetorical flourish’ and what he meant to write was that there was no reliable scientific evidence to support the treatment.

The payment of damages has never been a priority for the BCA. A nominal sum was requested from the earliest exchanges as a point of principle.

Far more important is an acknowledgment by Dr. Singh that what he published was wrong, and provide an apology for it. Simon Singh has steadfastly refused to do this.


His attitude is best exemplified by his statement to the BCA when the association tried to find a sensible compromise. Dr. Singh said that he would continue to litigate because "I’ve got the time and I’ve got the money."

The case continues.

Ends

Press enquiries: Publicasity - Tel: 020 7632 2400


Also see these two links:

'My email to the BCA'
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/my-email-to-bca.html

'A gentle reminder for the BCA'
http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/a-gentle-reminder-for-the-bca/

[polomint38]

Brand Alchemists 144

;D;D;D

[Blue Wode]

Jack of Kent on the BCA's press release:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-speaks.html

[Blue Wode]

The full text of Eady's ruling: http://tinyurl.com/qte3cx (http://tinyurl.com/qte3cx)

[Trinoc]

The full text of Eady's ruling: http://tinyurl.com/qte3cx (http://tinyurl.com/qte3cx)
I what sense is the question of whether the BCA had deliberate dishonest intention in promoting bogus treatments a "verifiable fact" (para 14)? How do you verify someone's intentions as a fact?

In any case, surely it is possible for treatments to be bogus (even in Eady's sense of the word) and for the BCA to be happily promoting them, without the BCA necessarily promoting them with the knowledge that they are bogus.

Justice Eady's reasoning here seems to be lacking in an understanding of both logic and the English language.

(Only an opinion, of course ...)

[bindeweede]

According to Jack,



BCA v Singh: Deadline For Appeal Extended (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-deadline-for-appeal.html)

I understand that the deadline for Simon Singh to file any appeal has been extended until 8 June 2009.http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/

[bindeweede]

Interesting article in The Observer.



Why are they trying to gag a top British science writer?

When chiropractors drag a top science writer into the libel courts, the country has lost its backbone
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/31/simon-singh-science

[DrS]

What a superb article ... and what a dreadful prospect it paints. I find myself far more frightened by this reality of control than any number of conspiratorial scenarios of world domination.

[bindeweede]

It would appear Simon Singh is going to appeal against Judge Eady's "bogus" ruling.

Good Luck Simon.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/simon-singh-to-appeal-bogus-decision.html

[Trinoc]

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/simon-singh-to-appeal-bogus-decision.html
I notice the one dissenting voice in the comments is one Stewart McOwan. Could he possibly be connected with this site?

http://www.minervabooks.co.uk/


Stewart McOwan t/a Minerva Homeopathic Books. VAT number GB 648 8213 13
A Google search on his name yields some interesting links.

[Blue Wode]

Newsletter 34 from Simon Singh (not yet online http://www.simonsingh.net/ (http://www.simonsingh.net/) )



I will apply to the Court of Appeal on Monday 6 June 2009

1. Court of Appeal and Campaign Launch

I am glad to say that on Monday I will apply to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to overturn the recent negative ruling on meaning in my libel case with the British Chiropractic Association.

Also, Sense About Science have launched a campaign linked to my libel case and focussing on the need to overhaul the English libel system, which is deeply flawed and which therefore has a chilling effect on journalism.

The campaign has issued a statement of support, which has already been signed by an incredible list of people, including James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Ricky Gervais, Sir Martin Rees, Penn & Teller, Stephen Fry, Martin Amis and Steve Jones. It would be terrific if you would also sign up to the statement and (better still) encourage others to sign up. It is conceivable that this campaign could help reform the English libel laws (which unfortunately affect overseas journalists too). Please help us move closer to having a free press.

You can find the statement and sign up at:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/libelcampaign (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/libelcampaign)


2. Fighting Fund

I have had many kind and generous offers of financial help, but at the moment I am able to fund my own legal costs. However, if you would like to help, then please make a donation to Sense About Science, who will need funding to maintain what could be a long battle to reform the libel laws. You can find out how to donate at:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/336 (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/336)


3. Cheltenham and Oxford

I will be speaking at the Cheltenham Science Festival on Saturday 6 June and at Oxford Skeptics in the Pub on Monday. More information at:
http://www.simonsingh.net/Simon_Lectures.php (http://www.simonsingh.net/Simon_Lectures.php)


And finally, a massive thanks to everyone who has been so supportive over the last month. You have genuinely played a crucial role in my decision to go to the Court of Appeal.

Cheerio,
Simon.

Ps. You can find plenty of press coverage about the libel case at the Sense About Science website, but some highlights include:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/ouch+dr+singh+hits+back/3194057 (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/ouch+dr+singh+hits+back/3194057)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc77Y-XBlj0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc77Y-XBlj0)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1190863/Stars-writer-sues-chiropractors-saying-unproven-treatment-bogus.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1190863/Stars-writer-sues-chiropractors-saying-unproven-treatment-bogus.html)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/silenced-the-writer-who-dared-to-say-chiropractice-is-bogus-1696408.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/silenced-the-writer-who-dared-to-say-chiropractice-is-bogus-1696408.html)

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/ (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/)

[davidrodway]

Here are some of the refernces that the BCA might be alluding to. Dont know if they are any good - maybe not if they wre seemingly reluctant to disclose them.

Sixteen Infants with Acid Reflux or Colic Undergoing Upper Cervical Chiropractic Care to Correct Vertebral Subluxation: A Retrospective Analysis of Outcome
J Pediatric, Maternal & Family Health - Chiropractic May 2009: 1–7

Comparison of the Short-term Effects of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation and Occipito-sacral Decompression in the Treatment of Infant Colic: A Single-blinded, Randomised, Comparison Trial
Clinical Chiropractic 2008 (Sep); 11 (3): 122–129

Chiropractic Management of Infantile Colic Clinical Chiropractic 2004 (Dec); 7 (4): 180–186

Vertebral Subluxation Correlated with Somatic,Visceral and Immune Complaints: An Analysis of 650 Children Under Chiropractic Care
Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research 2004 (Oct 18): 1–23

Differential Compliance Instrument in the Treatment of Infantile Colic: A Report of Two Cases J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2002; 25 (1) Jan: 58–62

Chiropractic Management of an Infant Experiencing Breastfeeding Difficulties and Colic: A Case Study
J Clinical Chiropractic Pediatrics 2000; 4 (1): 245-247

The Short-term Effect of Spinal Manipulation in the Treatment of Infantile Colic: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial with a Blinded Observer
J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1999; 22 (8) Oct: 517–522

Chiropractic Care of Infantile Colic: A Case Study J Clinical Chiropractic Pediatrics 1999; 3 (1): 203-206

Infantile Colic Treated by Chiropractors: A Prospective Study of 316 Cases J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1989; 12 (4) Aug: 281–288

[bindeweede]

Very interesting article in tomorrow's Sunday Times.

UK faces backlash as home of libel tourism





Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace, Global Witness, Index on Censorship and representatives of Oxfam and Christian Aid are all known to be alarmed by the way UK courts are being used to challenge their reports.
“Our libel laws have made Britain a place where any of the world’s bullies and wealthy celebrities can wander into court 13 \ and launder their reputations,” said Mark Stephens, a partner at the law firm Finers Stephens Innocent, which advises many non-governmental organisations (NGOs).



Mr Justice Eady, a High Court judge, has delivered a series of rulings that have bolstered privacy laws and encouraged libel tourism. He awarded Max Mosley, the Formula One president, privacy damages of &#163;60,000 over the News of the World’s expos&#233; of his sex life.
Most recently, Eady has been accused of “stifling” scientific debate after he ruled in favour of a trade body for chiropractors against a science writer who had accused the body of promoting “bogus treatments”. Eady said that Simon Singh, the writer, had effectively accused the body of dishonesty.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6446411.ece

[Blue Wode]

From Richard Brown, Vice President of the British Chiropractic Association:



Why the recent portrayal of chiropractic is distorted

09 Jun 09

Richard Brown, vice president of the British Chiropractic Association, responds to the barrage of criticism of the chiropractic profession following its libel action against science writer Simon Singh. He argues the criticism ignores the excellent safety record of chiropractic and the fact that it's a highly regulated profession.

I suppose we shouldn’t really be surprised.

NICE has issued guidelines on the management of back pain that include spinal manipulation and Professor Edzard Ernst has protested. Despite a development group comprising a range of highly eminent specialists in back pain management, including a past president of the European Spine Society, Ernst’s proclamation of committee bias in favour of the manipulative professions has been widely publicised. Seemingly disregarding their fastidious approach to the guideline (the document is 240 pages long with appendices in excess of 400 pages), Ernst has poured scorn on its conclusions and recommendations.

Ernst is no stranger to controversy, yet his latest New Scientist article breaks new ground. In it, he systematically takes apart the chiropractic profession with a series of inaccuracies and misinformed comment. For one who claims to be a scientific researcher, there is a surprising lack of original clinical trials conducted by his Exeter-based department. Instead, he focuses on so-called systematic reviews (including the bizarrely titled systematic review of systematic reviews) looking at available research and publishing what he claims is the consensus.

All very laudable, you may think. To educate the medical community and the public of the merits (or otherwise) of complementary medicine surely must be a force for good. Until, that is, one discovers that Ernst seems to ignore material that does not support his agenda.

Repeatedly, Ernst has spoken out on what he perceives to be the dangers of what he disrespectfully calls ‘chiropractic therapy’. Ernst widely disseminates his view that chiropractic can cause stroke and death, despite strong evidence to show that undergoing spinal manipulation from a chiropractor or osteopath is no more dangerous than visiting a GP.

In the wake of two groundbreaking studies published in the last two years demonstrating the safety of chiropractic care, Ernst continues to peddle his scaremongering to a susceptible public. He cannot claim not to have been aware of these studies – he was consulted on the methodology of one of them and commented positively on its conclusions – yet chooses to ignore them when warning the public against consulting chiropractors. Hardly the actions of a scientific researcher committed to finding out the truth without fear or favour.

Ernst fails to acknowledge at any point in his New Scientist article that chiropractic is regulated by statute and that patients are protected by a strict Code of Practice and Standard of Proficiency. As one of the nine UK regulated healthcare professions, the General Chiropractic Council is overseen by the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE). In its most recent report, the CHRE commented, “[The GCC] takes its role seriously and aspires to, and often maintains, excellence.”

Although he grudgingly admits that spinal manipulation might be useful for some types of back pain, Ernst is at pains to portray chiropractic as ‘pre-scientific’ and lacking any credible evidence to support its claims. He points to a paucity of randomised controlled trials to justify this lack of evidence. As well as overlooking the fact that a very sizable number of accepted medical interventions have little or no research evidence to support them, Ernst seems to have forgotten that practising evidence-based care comprises far more than rigid adherence to clinical research. He gives no credence to the value of individual clinical experience and expertise and in doing so, overlooks completely the experiences in practice that stimulate more rigorous scientific enquiry and contribute to the knowledge base.

In his castigation of the chiropractic profession, Ernst makes a further cardinal error. Instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue with the chiropractic profession and seeking to truly understand its contribution to the health of the nation, Ernst has repeatedly shied away from invitations to participate in debate and visit the educational institutions. In doing so he has preferred to repeatedly proffer his misguided assumption that chiropractic treatment is synonymous with spinal manipulation. That he refers to it simply as therapy further suggests a blatant misapprehension that chiropractors indiscriminately crack the spines of all who walk through their doors.

Just as medicines are but one component of medical care, so spinal manipulation is a tool used as part of a package of care by chiropractors. Both approaches may have side effects, but in keeping with responsible healthcare a careful risk-benefit analysis must be undertaken. Where manipulation is contraindicated, other treatment options exist. Chiropractors are trained to utilise a range of treatment techniques including advice, reassurance and exercise and do so every day in their practices.

But let’s get to the real agenda behind Ernst’s New Scientist article. Since 2008, the co-author of his book Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial Simon Singh has been embroiled in a libel case after labelling treatment for certain conditions promoted by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) as ‘bogus’ and having ‘not a jot of evidence’ to support them.

At a hearing in the High Court in May, Mr Justice Eady ruled that the meaning of the words used by Singh was that the BCA knowingly and dishonestly promoted quack remedies for which no evidence whatsoever existed.

The case has sparked a vicious backlash from Singh’s supporters who, predictably, have called for reform of the English libel law. Claiming that the BCA has sought to ‘stifle scientific endeavour’, pro-Singh professional and lay scientists have mounted a nationwide campaign of intimidation against chiropractors and via widespread blogging have encouraged a ‘blitzkrieg’ against the BCA.

As Ernst, Singh and their band of supporters continue to wage war on the chiropractic profession, consider this: each year tens of thousands of patients benefit from chiropractic. Its safety record is equal or superior to any other regulated health profession in the UK and there have been no known deaths from chiropractic treatment that have occurred in the UK. Patient satisfaction is consistently high and the profession is committed to researching their methods of treatment to deliver ever greater standards of care. The NICE guidelines, showing both clinical and cost benefit of chiropractic management, are testament to these advances and for the first time there is a realistic prospect of NHS-funded chiropractic.

Not bad for mumbo-jumbo gobbledygook.

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=20&storycode=4122930&c=2


(Registration to Pulse is free and anyone can leave a response in the comments section.)

[Blue Wode]

Following more than 500 complaints being sent to the General Chiropractic Council this week, here are the latest (astonishing) developments:

Chiropractors told to take down their websites
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/chiropractors-told-to-take-down-their.html (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/chiropractors-told-to-take-down-their.html)

Chiropractors in Mass Website Withdrawal
http://www.layscience.net/node/593 (http://www.layscience.net/node/593)

McTimoney Chiropractic Assocition cut and run
http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/mctimoney-chiropractic/ (http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/mctimoney-chiropractic/)

Will this bring more monkeys on my back?
http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.com/2009/06/before-every-action-ask-yourself-will.html (http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.com/2009/06/before-every-action-ask-yourself-will.html)


Also, there's a new, critical post on chiropractic for children here
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/how-british-chiropractic-association.html (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/how-british-chiropractic-association.html)

and this is interesting too:

“How the GCC wastes money and keeps council members in the styles they are accustomed to”
http://chiropracticlive.com/gccs-vexatious-complaints/how-the-gcc-wastes-money-and-keeps-council-members-in-the-styles-they-are-accustomed-to/ (http://chiropracticlive.com/gccs-vexatious-complaints/how-the-gcc-wastes-money-and-keeps-council-members-in-the-styles-they-are-accustomed-to/)


ETA: Don't panic! Mr Mainwaring!
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/dont-panic-mr-mainwaring.html

[tolman]

I guess all it needs is a little more mainstream media attention, and even if libel laws don't change, other people may well think twice before choosing litigation as a way of stifling criticism.

The withdrawal of claims, even if done for defensive reasons, would seem to make a much easier target of those claiming chiropractic can cure almost anything. At least previously, they could use the defence of anecdotal evidence, but once they've effectively accepted that that isn't good enough, they can't easily go back to using it again in future.

However, surely now, all the hordes of therapists who honestly believe the treatments they sell really do work will now be rushing off to fund some proper scientific studies...

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Staggering :shocked:

[Croydon Bob]

Following more than 500 complaints being sent to the General Chiropractic Council this week, here are the latest (astonishing) developments:


Thank you for all that. It seems very positive to me.

[Trinoc]

If it wasn't for Justice Eady telling me otherwise, I'd swear this means a large part of the chiropractic community are admitting that they know their claims are bogus!

[Blue Wode]

The following is lifted from a post made to a thread at the Bad Science forum today at 12.50pm by pv re Anglo European College of Chiropractic's research efforts (live links on original post):

Here's their pre-treatment questionnaire.
And here's their post-treatment questionnaire.

As I said, consumer questionnaires.

This document is interesting. In it, on page 17 of the pdf (page 25 of the publication), in what they describe as a "Comparison of the Short-term Effects of Two Chiropractic Techniques in the Treatment of Infant Colic: a Singleblinded, Randomised Trial", they state quite categorically that:

There are no proven treatments for infant colic...

Methinks it rather undermines their case in court, even in the Eady sense.

What's the chiropractic definition of "perjury"?

And the study itself is laughable, comparing two chiropractic techniques and deciding there was no difference between them. This for them represents serious research! What wilfully deluded idiots!

http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8946&p=190375#p190375


It's also worth noting that Richard Brown, the Vice President of the BCA, operates this clinic:

Hardwicke & Quedgeley Chiropractic Clinic
http://www.hqcc.co.uk
"....colic, back pain, frozen shoulder, tennis elbow, tendonitis, hip bursitis, knee injuries, ankle strains and sprains"

[Blue Wode]

'Chiropocalypse' spreads to United Chiropractic Association (UCA) and the BCA:
http://www.layscience.net/node/594 (http://www.layscience.net/node/594)

[Trinoc]

It gets better all the time ...

[Dubious Dick]

It is good to see a groundswell of complaints against chiros building. Intend to check the Yellow Pages to see if any local ones are pushing their luck.

Did note a piece ina local paper about a chiro going into schools to advise kide about good posture etc. Am intending to write to the local Education Authority to assk why they are allowing self promotion of non-evidence based treatments via schoolchildren.

Surely if the Ed and Health authorities want to get what may, in its own right, be good advice, then surely they should be professional physios who, in my experience tend to be excellent?

It's interesting to see the piece by the BCA guy claiming evidence, but once again failing to quote it. The only thing professional about it is the level of waffle. Also goes direct for the ad hom on Ernst (funny how they focus on him and not Simon Singh, despite bit at end.

[Ryoden]

Ah the delightful glare of public scrutiny, watch them scurry for cover, pull down the websites and batten down the hatches.

Shock, horror, they may be expected to "gulp" produce evidence to support their claims, surely not.

I bet they are regretting suing now, it would have been more sensible to just have ignored the comment and let it die, but now there is blood in the water.>:D

[lost thought]

Probably thought they would get a lot of publicity trouble was it did but not the kind they wanted now every one is asking PROOVE IT and they can’t shut every one up with the courts and dim witted judges who are divorced from reality. O0

Now it’s a case of put up or shut up and they don’t like it. >:D

[Ryoden]

Are osteopaths going to come under fire due to this as well does anyone think?

[lost thought]

Bone and joint crackers all look the same to the public, ht eperception on the street are that they are the same profession. :cheesy:

[DrS]

Are osteopaths going to come under fire due to this as well does anyone think?
Somehow I doubt it. I think there are too many people who mistake osteopathy for a regular medical speciality. Even the word is recognizable by many as something concerned with bones. I've known highly educated but non-medical people assume that you'd find the osteopathy department just down the corridor, as it were, from orthopedics.

Hoping now that orthopedics are regular doctors ...... :undecided:

[Ryoden]

Somehow I doubt it. I think there are too many people who mistake osteopathy for a regular medical speciality. Even the word is recognizable by many as something concerned with bones. I've known highly educated but non-medical people assume that you'd find the osteopathy department just down the corridor, as it were, from orthopedics.

Hoping now that orthopedics are regular doctors ...... :undecided:

That's a shame, it would be nice to use the impetus of this to throw light on the other pseudo-medical practices and get the public to question the lack of evidence therein.

[DrS]

I couldn't agree more ... let's hope I'm way off the mark! :smiley:

[Trinoc]

Let's concentrate on chiropractic for now, as that's the one which has chosen to put itself in the limelight (or shoot itself in the foot). We should not spread our ammunition thinly by trying to advance on more than one front at a time. Hopefully other practices will learn from the experience and make sure they don't make unsubstantiated claims ... but if not, they will know what to expect when the time comes.

[bindeweede]

500 Chiropractors reported to Trading Standards and GCC (http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/06/500-chiropractors-reported-to-trading.html)


http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/06/500-chiropractors-reported-to-trading.html

[bindeweede]

And Jack of Kent writes about a "Quacklash".

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/06/quacklash-causes-and-effects.html

[Croydon Bob]

Justice Eady back in the news for a different but controversial ruling:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8103132.stm

[Matt]

Justice Eady back in the news for a different but controversial ruling:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8103132.stm

I thought I'd see what was so controversial that ti required legally mandated anonymity.

http://nightjack.wordpress.com/


The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.

Aha I thought I'm no amateur at this game and I know a thing or two (http://skeptools.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/web-archive-skeptic-tool/) about the internet

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://nightjack.wordpress.com/


We're sorry, access to http://nightjack.wordpress.com/ has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.

Nothing in the Google cache either.

All I know about the blog is that Google consider it authorative and these are the pages it find of note

The Evil Poor (http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/the-evil-poor/&ei=R7E3Sv6kOdW5-Qa90YC2DQ&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNEkWMSyv46_GfsJ_c5-oiLANYMQPA)
The Smoke Goes Up The Chimney ... (http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/the-smoke-goes-up-the-chimney-just-the-same/&ei=R7E3Sv6kOdW5-Qa90YC2DQ&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=2&usg=AFQjCNEfi7nXLNqRS9a-FWBFUN8U6osupQ)
Ozymandias (http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/ozymandias/&ei=R7E3Sv6kOdW5-Qa90YC2DQ&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=3&usg=AFQjCNGjJYQGmGMxeLRfbgaptVrypbY5Yg)
Darkness At The Edge of Town (http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/darkness-at-the-edge-of-town/&ei=R7E3Sv6kOdW5-Qa90YC2DQ&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=4&usg=AFQjCNF9KDhZUCs5vuQFKakXI4PVG8E5ug)
Only 24 Hours To Crack The Case ... (http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/only-24-hours-to-crack-the-case/&ei=R7E3Sv6kOdW5-Qa90YC2DQ&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=5&usg=AFQjCNEFyT5u7QJ4DTefAZQVzsz6iB8OrA)
From Truncheons To Tasers (http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/from-truncheons-to-tasers/&ei=R7E3Sv6kOdW5-Qa90YC2DQ&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=6&usg=AFQjCNE-lc5OJZSo37j7y89NWyIaHwGyuA)
Part 7 (http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/only-24-hours-to-crack-the-case-part-7/&ei=R7E3Sv6kOdW5-Qa90YC2DQ&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=7&usg=AFQjCNHihR5Y9I2S_rOzD8Epb0vKutLzAw)
Pop Quiz (http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/pop-quiz/&ei=R7E3Sv6kOdW5-Qa90YC2DQ&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=8&usg=AFQjCNH7exCSXSjVYLYl0M4MnP-mnbYonw)


The evil poor... a very ahem "incitefull" phrase

[Blue Wode]

Re 500+ complaints...

The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) wants to waive the rules
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1764 (http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1764)

Also see here:
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/email-2-from-gcc.html (http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/email-2-from-gcc.html)

[tolman]

Legally speaking, what's the difference between 'a case to answer' and 'realistic prospect of success'? It seems to depend on what 'realistic' means.

Looking at the negation, I'd have thought that 'no realistic prospect of success' should mean chances of success of no more than a few percent at best.

In the context of people clearly making valid complaints it would actually be a dangerous thing to do for a supposed regulating body to dismiss those kinds of claims out of hand, since that could seriously rebound on them if people didn't take the dismissal lying down.

[Blue Wode]

The General Chiropractic Council has just released this statement:
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/GCC_statement_re_evidence_based_care_17_June_09_(w ith_logo).pdf

[Blue Wode]

Moving the goalposts (Part One)
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/moving-goalposts-part-one.html (http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/moving-goalposts-part-one.html)

[Trinoc]

Something just occurred to my slow brain while reading through the Randi forum thread on this subject ...

The BCA is an organisation, not a private individual. How can an organisation be said to have intentions, dishonest or otherwise? It is not a conscious entity. Individual members may have intentions, but an organisation only has actions.

Surely this implies that Eady's interpretation of the article as accusing the BCA of deliberate dishonesty is fundamentally meaningless.

[Jack of Kent]

Something just occurred to my slow brain while reading through the Randi forum thread on this subject ...

The BCA is an organisation, not a private individual. How can an organisation be said to have intentions, dishonest or otherwise? It is not a conscious entity. Individual members may have intentions, but an organisation only has actions.

Surely this implies that Eady's interpretation of the article as accusing the BCA of deliberate dishonesty is fundamentally meaningless.

A company can be dishonest and indeed can be prosecuted for theft; it can also be prosecuted for manslaughter, which also requires a "state of mind".

In libel law, Tesco could bring a libel case against the Guardian for its tax affairs, just as BCA are bringing a case against Singh.

The law in these cases treats a company just as a natural person.

I think this is wrong.

But you are right, Trinoc, in your suggestion that it is far harder to evidence such an intention.

[Blue Wode]

Just released - BCA statement on evidence:
http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/BCA%20Statement%20170609.pdf

[Trinoc]

But you are right, Trinoc, in your suggestion that it is far harder to evidence such an intention.
So, what exactly would the BCA have to be shown to have done in order for Eady and friends to accept that they had been proved to have dishonest intent?

If there are no conceivable facts which could establish such an intent, then surely Eady has created a case that can only ever possibly be settled one way. Surely the fact the a judge has, literally, prejudged the issue should be adequate grounds for appeal.

[davidrodway]

Re. the latest chiro press release referred to in the last post but one - i see ref 17 (I think it was) referred to OSTEOPATHIC research by CLive Standen. Apart from any other faults it may have, I think , being fair to them, that even the authors would agree that one major fault was that the parents (probably unavoidably) were in the room with the children during ttt - hence possible placebo from effect on parent.

If the other references are shown to be also faulty, where does that leave the case? - the chiros could argue that at the time they thought them valid and published in good faith. That rather implies that they were innocent but deluded fools - they win the case against SIngh but only because they were stupid but honest. Hardly covers them in glory, altho such finer points may be lost on the public.

[tolman]

If the other references are shown to be also faulty, where does that leave the case? - the chiros could argue that at the time they thought them valid and published in good faith. That rather implies that they were innocent but deluded fools - they win the case against SIngh but only because they were stupid but honest. Hardly covers them in glory, altho such finer points may be lost on the public.
Rather than just innocent, wouldn't it rather show that they were basically incompetent/ignorant when it came to assessing evidence for the efficacy of treatments they sell, despite claiming to be medical professionals?

Also, if they were going tro claim incompetence or ignorance as a defence, where does that leave their claims about the efficacy of any other treatments they sell?
Wouldn't an honest trader have to really pull right back to a position of security, where they could show real evidence of whcih treatements did work?

[Blue Wode]

Here's a link to the full text of ref.2 [Klougart N, Nilsson N and Jacobsen J (1989) Infantile Colic Treated by Chiropractors: A Prospective Study of 316 Cases, J Manip Physiol Ther, 12:281-288] in the 'evidence' section of the BCA's most recent statement:
http://www.dcscience.net/Klougart%20et%20al_1989_JMPT_colic.pdf

Jack of Kent's take on the statement is here:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/06/bca-v-singh-bcas-third-update.html

And with regard to the GCC, this is the latest from Zeno:
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/moving-goalposts-part-two.html

[Trinoc]

Here's a link to the full text of ref.2 [Klougart N, Nilsson N and Jacobsen J (1989) Infantile Colic Treated by Chiropractors: A Prospective Study of 316 Cases, J Manip Physiol Ther, 12:281-288] in the 'evidence' section of the BCA's most recent statement:
http://www.dcscience.net/Klougart%20et%20al_1989_JMPT_colic.pdf
So, no control and no blinding then?

[Blue Wode]

So, no control and no blinding then?
It would seem so.

And here's a new twist.

From lecanardnoir at Twitter (http://twitter.com/lecanardnoir): (http://twitter.com/lecanardnoir):)

In publishing their 'plethora' the BCA may be in breach of the GCC code of practice. http://bit.ly/2Zd7h (http://bit.ly/2Zd7h)


Also, here's David Colquhoun on the BCA's 'plethora' of evidence:
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1775 (http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1775)

[Blue Wode]

Edzard Ernst responds to the BCA Vice President's rebuttal of recent criticisms of chiropractors:
http://trunc.it/h7kr (http://trunc.it/h7kr)
(Rregistration at Pulse is free and anybody can leave a comment.)

[Blue Wode]

Another critical review of the BCA's 'plethora' of evidence:

Ignorance and Dishonesty: A Review of The BCA's Evidence for Chiropractic
http://www.layscience.net/node/598 (http://www.layscience.net/node/598)

[Blue Wode]

More blogging.

Examining the BCA's 'plethora' of evidence
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2009/06/18/examining-the-bcas-plethora-of-evidence/

BCA Statement Baffles Blogger
http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/bca-statement-baffles-blogger/

The BCA have no evidence that chiropractic can help with ear infections
http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/the-bca-have-no-evidence-that-chiropractic-can-help-with-ear-infections/

[Trinoc]

Copy and pasteable version of the BCA release here ...

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/BCA-Statement.pdf

[Blue Wode]

The latest blogging...

The BCA's Worst Day
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/06/bcas-worst-day-yet.html (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/06/bcas-worst-day-yet.html)


British Chiropractic Association (BCA) demonstrate what evidence-based medicine isn’t
http://holfordwatch.info/2009/06/18/british-chiropractic-association-bca-demonstrate-what-evidence-based-medicine-isnt/ (http://holfordwatch.info/2009/06/18/british-chiropractic-association-bca-demonstrate-what-evidence-based-medicine-isnt/)


British Chiropractic Association and The Plethora of Evidence for Paediatric Asthma
http://evidencematters.org/2009/06/18/british-chiropractic-association-and-the-plethora-of-evidence-for-paediatric-asthma/ (http://evidencematters.org/2009/06/18/british-chiropractic-association-and-the-plethora-of-evidence-for-paediatric-asthma/)


Careful, BCA, you might slip a disk!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/18/careful-bca-you-might-slip-a-disk/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/18/careful-bca-you-might-slip-a-disk/)

[Trinoc]

Jack of Kent's analysis of the long-delayed BCA reply to Singh's defence ...

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/06/bcas-reply.html

[Mark Fletcher]

Has anyone seen a copy of Mr Justice Eady's judgment? I have not been able to find a transcript on the web. It would be interesting to know exactly what his finding was.

[bindeweede]

Has anyone seen a copy of Mr Justice Eady's judgment? I have not been able to find a transcript on the web. It would be interesting to know exactly what his finding was.

A Forum member, Jack of Kent, has posted this, which might help.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-official-ruling.html

[Blue Wode]

For anyone wishing to be brought up to date with all the new developments, see from page 13 onwards here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121214&page=13

[Trinoc]

Looks like someone has attempted to do a Ralsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ralsky) on Zeno, using information which could only have originated from the GCC ...

http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/procedure-what-procedure-and-more.html

[lost thought]

Ah such gentlemanly conduct as becoming of professional woo merchants allegedly. >:D

[bindeweede]

The latest from Jack of Kent.



BMJ: The "Plethora" Has Been Completely Demolished (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/07/bmj-plethora-has-been-demolished.html)

In what seems a potentially devastating blow to the British Chiropractic Association, an editorial in the current British Medical Journal (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul08_4/b2783) says the following of the review by Edzard Ernst of the BCA's 'plethora' of evidence (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/339/jul08_4/b2766):

"His demolition of the 18 references is, to my mind, complete."

Read this aloud, slowly; and then imagine this sentence being read out in court.

This is surely devastating.http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/

[Jack of Kent]

Thanks Bindeweede for the link.

The BCA case is coming apart under the pressure of the prolonged scrutiny, just as the chiropractic profession is taking a beating more generally because of the challenges being made to their misleading advertising and unfair commercial practices.

The BCA are now discredited. The "plethora" of evidence has been demolished completely, in the view of the BMJ editorial. And, in my view, when something has been demolished completely, not a jot remains.

The now discredited BCA, however, still (currently) have the protection of the court's preliminary ruling on meaning. But even that does not now look as solid as it did...

[JJM]

In the BMJ opinion-piece by the BCA, they have trimmed their plethora of evidence from 29 articles to 19. Still, seven of the articles are irrelevant. None of the rest is compelling, and they still omit the strong evidence against claims for chiro in visceral illnesses of children. Those must be willful omissions. Can we say bogus (without being sued)?

[JJM]

... The BCA case is coming apart under the pressure of the prolonged scrutiny, just as the chiropractic profession is taking a beating more generally because of the challenges being made to their misleading advertising and unfair commercial practices. [italics added, JJM]Mr. Of Kent, I object to the use of the word "profession" referring to chiro- it is a cult (at best, a bogus "trade"). I realize that, today, we speak of professional garbage collectors; but "profession" dignifies chiropracty (and UK osteopathy) compared to true professionals, such as garbage collectors.

[Blue Wode]

Lifted from Simon Singh’s latest e-newsletter (not yet online at http://www.simonsingh.net (http://www.simonsingh.net/)):


Newsletter 35
Festival of Ideas
12 July, 2009

1. Application to Appeal
2. Heading Down Under

1. Application to Appeal

Unlike recent newsletters, I will try to avoid filling this one with lots of tedious legal details. However, I will mention that the Application to Appeal has been lodged and I am now waiting for the result. For more news and information about my libel case, you can visit the Sense About Science website or follow any of the insightful and entertaining bloggers who are covering the subject. The most recent media coverage was in the Daily Mail and there is also an interview I gave to the Nature podcast.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jun/19/chiropractic-bca-mca-singh (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jun/19/chiropractic-bca-mca-singh)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1196696/Back-cures-brave-scientist-epic-court-battle-How-Britains-libel-laws-threatening-free-speech.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1196696/Back-cures-brave-scientist-epic-court-battle-How-Britains-libel-laws-threatening-free-speech.html)
http://nature.edgeboss.net/download/nature/nature/podcast/extras/singh-2009-06-29.mp3?ewk13=1 (http://nature.edgeboss.net/download/nature/nature/podcast/extras/singh-2009-06-29.mp3?ewk13=1)

Most important of all (if you have not done it already), please sign and support the libel reform campaign and encourage others to join the list of 15,000 names.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/ (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/)


2. Heading Down Under

I am currently in Adelaide, where I am taking part in the Festival of Ideas. I have already spoken at a couple of events, and have two more to come on Sunday. You can find out more details at the festival website or my website. I am also giving a talk on Tuesday in Adelaide about risk and probability, which is an event sponsored by the Royal Institution of Australia. I will also be speaking in Sydney on July 15.
http://www.simonsingh.com/Simon_Lectures.php (http://www.simonsingh.com/Simon_Lectures.php)
http://www.adelaidefestivalofideas.com.au/ (http://www.adelaidefestivalofideas.com.au/)
http://riskprobabilityandgambling.eventbrite.com/ (http://riskprobabilityandgambling.eventbrite.com/)
http://skeptics.meetup.com/163/calendar/10746110/ (http://skeptics.meetup.com/163/calendar/10746110/)

[Blue Wode]

The latest from Jack of Kent:

Why BCA v Singh Matters To Me
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-bca-v-singh-matters-to-me.html

[lost thought]

This brings up the matter of future libel cases with the publicity of this case would an organisation based on suspect science have a qualm or two about following the BCA route in order to silence critics or will they be more inclined to wait it out.
The publicity fall out from this case means that other cam practises are being questioned as we have seen on comedy TV.
And would other science and medical reporters be more scathing hoping for a kneejerk or BCA reaction for the publicity.
Is it the time for the giant killers to come forward and send the bullies home to think again. O0

[Trinoc]

It must be clear from this incident that anyone seeking to use the law to stifle scientific criticism is going to get an almighty backlash. We just need to make sure they don't forget it.

I hope, though, that we will be just as zealous if anyone tries this sort of trick from the orthodox side of science. It's all too easy to get carried away about injustice when it is "one of us" being threatened, but will we be consistent when the shoe is on the other foot?

[Jack of Kent]

I hope, though, that we will be just as zealous if anyone tries this sort of trick from the orthodox side of science. It's all too easy to get carried away about injustice when it is "one of us" being threatened, but will we be consistent when the shoe is on the other foot?

I agree entirely.

[Blue Wode]

Thanks to a member of ASKE, the full text of the science and libel articles in the latest issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) which addressed the BCA/Singh affair can now be found online here:
http://musicweaver.users.btopenworld.com/BMJ_Keep-libel-laws-out-of-science-articles.htm

They include the pieces by Fiona Godlee (BMJ Editor), Richard Brown (Vice-President of the BCA), and Professor Edzard Ernst.

[Blue Wode]

Via Dr*T at Thinking Is Dangerous blogspot this morning:



Monday, July 13, 2009
General Chiropractic Council unable to cope with complaints (http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.com/2009/07/general-chiropractic-council-unable-to.html)


According to a letter shown to this blog, the General Chiropractic Council has written to complainants and chiropractors saying that it can not cope with the number of complaints it has received (590 last month compared with 40 per year).

The GCC have stated that

it will be necessary to increase our regulatory staff capacity before we issue formal notification of any complaints relating to chiropractic websites.The lack of staff will delay the commencement of the formal process until September 2009. The increase in complaints (http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/omnibus-complaint-to-general.html) was due to the (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/reputation-of-british-chiropractic.html) British Chiropractic Association's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chiropractic_Association) attempt (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=555) to silence criticism (http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1775) about claims for chiropractic (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/how-british-chiropractic-association.html) being an evidence-free (http://holfordwatch.info/2009/06/18/british-chiropractic-association-bca-demonstrate-what-evidence-based-medicine-isnt/) zone (http://layscience.net/node/548).

If the BCA had been a bit less foolish, it could have avoided this whole debacle, but it appears that it was spoiling for a fight, and is looking pretty groggy (http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.com/2009/07/chiropractors-admit-chiropractic-has.html).

http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.com/2009/07/general-chiropractic-council-unable-to.html

[Trinoc]

Thanks to Dr*T for the link to this page ...

http://www.glasgowchiropractic.com/pages/shoulder-pain.html


Chiropractic has never cured anyone of anything.

[lost thought]

Thanks to Dr*T for the link to this page ...

http://www.glasgowchiropractic.com/pages/shoulder-pain.html



I tried to find this Conservative Chiropractic Care of Frozen Shoulder Syndrome: A Case Study. Chiropractic Res J, 1992; 2(2):31-37,
And found these links….Both are in PDF format the second link is 152 pages and you may find interesting.


http://www.roedigerchiropractic.com/PDF/Feb2008Newsletter.pdf (http://www.roedigerchiropractic.com/PDF/Feb2008Newsletter.pdf)

http://www.ccgpp.org/upperextremity.pdf (http://www.ccgpp.org/upperextremity.pdf)

[Blue Wode]

BCA Vice-President, Richard Brown, responds to Edzard Ernst in the BMJ today:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/jul08_4/b2766#217334

[Croydon Bob]

BCA Vice-President, Richard Brown, responds to Edzard Ernst in the BMJ today:

The desperate bleating of a dead-man-walking?

[Blue Wode]

Edzard Ernst responds to BCA's Richard Brown in today's BMJ:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/jul08_4/b2766#217424

ETA:
For anyone experiencing difficulties in accessing Ernst's response to Brown in the BMJ, try this link:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul08_4/b2766 (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul08_4/b2766)

[Trinoc]

Interesting article by Jack of Kent on another libel case ...

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/07/desmond-v-bower.html

The main point is that the practice of claimants getting the court to accept an exaggerated meaning of the alleged libel text (with the help of our friend, Justice Eady) can backfire badly if they lose, since it is now on record that the exaggerated claim is justified, even if it is not what the defendant intended to say.

Though Jack cautiously does not draw a parallel, it seems to me that if the BCA should lose their case against Simon Singh then it would similarly be on the record that a claim that they promoted bogus treatment with deliberate dishonesty would be justified, even though Singh did not actually intend to say that.

[Croydon Bob]

Interesting article by Jack of Kent on another libel case ...

An article on the same case highlighting Justice Eady's "plainly wrong" decision to disallow the crucial evidence in the case, fortunately overturned by appeal Judges:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/27/richard-desmond-express-newspapers

How come I never see anything positive about this man?

[Jack of Kent]

An article on the same case highlighting Justice Eady's "plainly wrong" decision to disallow the crucial evidence in the case, fortunately overturned by appeal Judges:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/27/richard-desmond-express-newspapers

How come I never see anything positive about this man?

I actualy am on Eady's side on his developments of privacy law.

[Blue Wode]

http://scepticsbook.com/2009/07/29/the-simon-singh-article-that-caused-all-the-fuss-reproduced-here/ (http://scepticsbook.com/2009/07/29/the-simon-singh-article-that-caused-all-the-fuss-reproduced-here/)

In a worldwide campaign released today, 29th July 2009, the Guardian article originally posted by Simon Singh back in April 2008, is being republished across the world.

The edited version has the libelous sentence removed, but is reproduced to allow the public at large to understand the intentions of Simon’s original post. Given the current legal action currently in progress by the British Chiropractic Association against Simon, this provides insight into the claims for all to see.

Spearheaded by Sense about Science, the intention of campaign is to alert the public to the potential implications of libel or defamation as it pertains to free speech and journalism, not only in the UK but also across the globe.

Below is the article produced in full, as approved by Simon and Sense about Science.


Beware the spinal trap

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99&#37; of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.
You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in the Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

Official link on this latest development:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/380

More:
http://www.layscience.net/node/621 (http://www.layscience.net/node/621)
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/07/what-fuss-is-all-about.html

[Jack of Kent]

I have published the two allegedly defamatory sentences at http://bit.ly/xvb4y

[zeno]

Brilliant! Which part/paragraph of Schedule 1 covers it, Jack?

[Trinoc]

The BCA themselves published the defamatory sentences here (http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/Press%20Statement%2007%2005%2009.pdf)!

[Mojo]

Ben Goldacre on the Grauniad website: An intrepid, ragged band of bloggers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/29/simon-singh-science-chiropractic-litigation).

[Jack of Kent]

Brilliant! Which part/paragraph of Schedule 1 covers it, Jack?

I am afraid only those of us in the Sixth Form class of the Legal Defences Against the Dark Arts can invoke this countercurse ;-)

[Jack of Kent]

The BCA themselves published the defamatory sentences here (http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/Press%20Statement%2007%2005%2009.pdf)!

I know. I am confident they will not sue themselves...

[Blue Wode]

The latest news -


Friday, 31 July 2009

Simon Singh Loses First Attempt At Permission To Appeal

The Court Office today confirmed to me that, in an Order sealed on 30 July 2009, the Court of Appeal has refused Simon Singh's application for permission to appeal (PTA).

Letters were sent to the parties yesterday (but there is a post strike in London).

Simon Singh needed PTA because permission to appeal had been refused at first instance at the preliminary hearing in May.

There are no further details yet, including reasons.

I understand that this refusal may now mean he can make an "oral renewal" before the Court of Appeal.

More information will be provided as it becomes available.
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/07/simon-singh-loses-first-attempt-at.html


Curiously, the BCA has hidden its statement on the matter three clicks away from its index page in a locked PDF file:


BCA Statement 31st July 2009

BCA v. SIMON SINGH

The BCA notes the decision of Lord Justice Keene sealed in the Court of Appeal on 30 July 2009, to refuse Dr Simon Singh the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal. It looks forward concluding this matter in due course to allow both parties to move forward constructively.

http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/BCA%20Statement%2031st%20July%202009.pdf

[Blue Wode]

Sense About Science responds to the Court of Appeal decision: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/381

[Trinoc]

Comments today from Jack of Kent about the refusal of permission to appeal ...

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/08/simons-choice.html

I'm inclined to think the "Heresiarch Manoeuvre" is the course of action to take here. That is, since the BCA has backed itself into the corner of arguing only about the question of "deliberate dishonesty" (which they persuaded the judge to adopt), Simon should agree to apologise for that (which he never intended anyway, whatever the rest of us may think about their honesty) and for that point alone, in exchange for them getting off his back before they do even more damage to the reputation of their profession.

[davidrodway]

Whatever the outcome of the case this whole issue isnt just going to fade away is it? The chirpractors will have aroused the ire of science journalists, the efficacy of chiropractic is more questionable in the public mind. and - it seems to me- the profile of skeptics and especially skeptic bloggers is a lot higher than it was.

[Mojo]

Curiously, the BCA has hidden its statement on the matter three clicks away from its index page in a locked PDF file:


In the basement, in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard"?

[Blue Wode]

The latest from Simon Singh via his newsletter (not yet available online):


Newsletter 36
Application to Appeal Rejected
3 August, 2009
http://www.simonsingh.net (http://www.simonsingh.net/)

1. Application to Appeal Rejected

For everyone following my libel case, the bad news is that my application to appeal seems to have been rejected. I say “seems” because I have not yet seen the official ruling as the letter is still in the post. However, there seems to have been a leak and my options are already being discussed by various bloggers. As usual, Jack of Kent has provided a clear summary of the situation:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/07/simon-singh-loses-first-attempt-at.html (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/07/simon-singh-loses-first-attempt-at.html)
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/08/simons-choice.html (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/08/simons-choice.html)

The Court of Appeal’s refusal is obviously disappointing, but I remain in good spirits. I will not be making a decision about my response until I have seen the official letter and the details of the refusal, and I will also need to time to discuss the situation with friends, colleagues, supporters and family. In the meantime, while my particular libel case is ongoing, it continues to raise a whole series of arguably more important issues, particularly the appalling state of English libel laws. I am pleased that the Culture Secretary has agreed to meet with signatories of the Keep Libel Laws out of Science campaign statement to hear how the laws affect science writers. We are also pursuing a meeting at the Ministry of Justice and with front benchers in other departments to lobby for a change in the law.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/ (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/)

Also, Ben Goldacre’s recent and excellent article in the Guardian (“An intrepid, ragged band of bloggers”) documents various activities that will interest those following my case.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/29/simon-singh-science-chiropractic-litigation (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/29/simon-singh-science-chiropractic-litigation)

[Blue Wode]

The latest from Jack of Kent:

The Length of Simon Singh's Skeleton: The Reasons for Refusal by the Court of Appeal
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/08/length-of-simon-singhs-skeleton-reasons.html

[Trinoc]

I would like to know whether the content of the article is even relevant when it hasn't even been decided whether or not the BCA, as a body rather than an individual, has a reputation which can be defamed in law. Surely this should have been ruled on first, and if the answer was "no" then the rest would be immaterial.

Are we in a position now where the only way to get a decision as to whether the BCA has any business suing for libel at all, is for Simon to go to trial based on Eady's ridiculous interpretation of the article? Is there no way to get a ruling on this point without a lot of extra hassle and expense?

[Jack of Kent]

I would like to know whether the content of the article is even relevant when it hasn't even been decided whether or not the BCA, as a body rather than an individual, has a reputation which can be defamed in law. Surely this should have been ruled on first, and if the answer was "no" then the rest would be immaterial.

Are we in a position now where the only way to get a decision as to whether the BCA has any business suing for libel at all, is for Simon to go to trial based on Eady's ridiculous interpretation of the article? Is there no way to get a ruling on this point without a lot of extra hassle and expense?

No, the "corporate point" is also a preliminary issue. It will have to be dealt with before any full trial. Sorry if my posts have not been clear on that point.

The question of whether the statement held a defamatory meaning, and if so what, was seen as logically prior to whether BCA could sue in respect of that meaning. That is why there was a ruling on meaning first.

I agree with this approach, but Trinoc is right to suggest it could well be the other way round.

[Trinoc]

No, the "corporate point" is also a preliminary issue. It will have to be dealt with before any full trial. Sorry if my posts have not been clear on that point.

The question of whether the statement held a defamatory meaning, and if so what, was seen as logically prior to whether BCA could sue in respect of that meaning. That is why there was a ruling on meaning first.

I agree with this approach, but Trinoc is right to suggest it could well be the other way round.
Would it not have saved a lot of time, bother and expense to settle this legal issue first? It seems we are already most of the way towards one side or other "winning" on the libel point without even deciding on the basic issue of whether libel is even applicable in this case.

If a judge were to decide tomorrow that an organisation like the BCA can not be libelled (as I think was decided a while back regarding local authorities -- correct me if I'm wrong here), presumably someone would have to pay the costs expended so far on the libel issue. In that case I might even feel sympathetic (but not very sympathetic) to the BCA if they had to fork out for this.

Does Simon now have to decide whether to incur further costs simply finding out whether there is a case to answer, before deciding whether or not to throw in the towel on the substantive libel issue? Could he not have insisted on a ruling on this matter first?

[Mulder]

Note to self: must resist pointing out absurdities of legal system! Jack makes his money out of this stuff!

[Jack of Kent]

Note to self: must resist pointing out absurdities of legal system! Jack makes his money out of this stuff!

I can assure you that this is sadly not the case :-(

[Mulder]

I can assure you that this is sadly not the case :-(

Would it be intrusive to ask what you do if it's not being a practising lawyer?

[Jack of Kent]

I am indeed a practising lawyer, but not one who is devoted to making money out of it...

[Mulder]

I am indeed a practising lawyer, but not one who is devoted to making money out of it...

You're spoiling a perfectly good stereotype!

[Blue Wode]

New paper from Edzard Ernst:


Spinal manipulation for asthma: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials

Some clinicians believe that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for asthma. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the evidence for or against this claim. Four electronic databases were searched without language restrictions from their inceptions to September 2008. Bibliographies and departmental files were hand-searched. The methodological quality of all included studies was assessed with the Jadad score. Only randomised clinical trials of spinal manipulation as a treatment of asthma were included. Three studies met these criteria. All of them were of excellent methodological quality (Jadad score 5) and all used sham-manipulation as the control intervention. None of the studies showed that real manipulation was more effective than sham-manipulation in improving lung function or subjective symptoms. It is concluded that, according to the evidence of the most rigorous studies available to date, spinal manipulation is not an effective treatment for asthma.

Respir Med. 2009 Jul 29
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19646855?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19646855?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)


Another systematic review due out soon:

“Chiropractic spinal manipulation for infant colic: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials" Int J Clin Pract 2009.

Meanwhile:

STOP THE CAMPAIGN - Edinburgh City Council has got evidence that chiropractic is an effective treatment for colic:
http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/08/stop-campaign-edinburgh-city-council.html (http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/08/stop-campaign-edinburgh-city-council.html)

Follow-up post:
http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/08/quest-for-dr-paul-homokys-secret.html (http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/08/quest-for-dr-paul-homokys-secret.html)

[Blue Wode]

Another update:


Simon Singh’s statement

Tuesday 11th August 2009

I can confirm today that I have applied for a hearing to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider its recent denial of permission.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/381#singhbca


Also, Edzard Ernst has another paper on chiropractic due out shortly:
Chiropractic for otitis? Int J Clin Pract, September 2009;63(9):1392–1393
http://sciencepond.com/EdzardErnst/statuses/3226019019 (http://sciencepond.com/EdzardErnst/statuses/3226019019)

[brettdbass]

If this case goes all the way and Simon Singh ends up losing the case (and let's be honest, we all know it's at the very least a possibility), what are the likely ramifications and where does Dr Singh go from there?
I recall mention of a £3M settlement being sought after - money which the good Doctor clearly will not have.

Has there been any movement of people pledging to assist financially should the worst happen? If not, might it be worth beginning to think about organising such support?

Please excuse me if I'm going over old ground here, been out of touch for some time...

[Blue Wode]

Simon fights on:
http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/08/simon-fights-on.html

And the skeptical bloggers also fight on:
Will Trading Standards now take on the General Chiropractic Council?
http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/08/will-trading-standards-now-take-on.html

Looking much further down the line, we can expect the results for this proposed RCT of chiropractic treatment for infantile colic by the end of 2011 or early 2012:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00954759

Simon Singh's oral re-consideration of his application for Permission To Appeal will be at a public hearing at the Court of Appeal in London on 14th October 2009.

[davidrodway]

Looking much further down the line, we can expect the results for this proposed RCT of chiropractic treatment for infantile colic by the end of 2011 or early 2012:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00954759

Looking at the proposal , one obvoius flaw, which was also in the C Standen trial of osteopathic ttt for coilc cited in the BCE "plethora", is the control group. It says that no active ttt will be given, but the parents will not know that. How can they not, unless they are outside the room (which apparently is ethically dodgy) ? So there could be a pacebo effect on the child via the parents.

[Blue Wode]

The latest from Edzard Ernst:


Chiropractic spinal manipulation for infant colic: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials

Some chiropractors claim that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for infant colic. This systematic review was aimed at evaluating the evidence for this claim. Four databases were searched and three randomised clinical trials met all the inclusion criteria. The totality of this evidence fails to demonstrate the effectiveness of this treatment. It is concluded that the above claim is not based on convincing data from rigorous clinical trials.

Int J Clin Pract. 2009 Sep;63(9):1272-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19691620?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[Blue Wode]

Another update.

Richard Dawkins condemns British libel laws:

Dawkins told the Liberal Democrat conference in Bournemouth [today] that scientists should settle their differences in the lab, not in court, and that libel laws that made it too easy for people to be sued could have "disastrous consequences" for the public interest.

-snip-

He used the opportunity to highlight the case of Simon Singh, the science writer he described as a "courageous hero" who is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association over an article he wrote for the Guardian's comment pages.

"I and many of my colleagues fear that if Simon loses it will have major implications on the freedom of scientists, researchers and other commentators to engage in robust criticism of scientific and pseudo-scientific work.

"It is possible in medicine, even when you intend to do good, to do harm instead. That's why science thrives on actively encouraging criticism, rather than stifling it," the former professor for public understanding of science at Oxford said.

"Scientists often disagree with one another, sometimes passionately. But they don't go to court to sort out their differences. They go into the lab, repeat the experiments, carefully examine the controls and the statistical analysis."

Dawkins said that instead of suing Singh, the BCA should "submit their case to the higher court of scientific test".

More...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/20/richard-dawkins-libel-laws

[Blue Wode]

And don't miss the interesting blog post that's just been put up here:
http://www.thinkabouthealth.org/2009/09/bcas-libel-action-against-simon-singh.html

[bindeweede]

Jack has written an interesting article on the legal difference between the GCC and the BCA.


Accordingly, I can type the following about a particular statutory corporation without any fear whatsoever:-

The General Chiropractic Council happily promotes (and regulates) bogus treatments for which there is not a jot of evidence.

I am safe because the GCC are a statutory corporation discharging a public function, and so I have the protection of the Derbyshire rule.

All this of course brings me to the British Chiropractic Association.

The BCA are suing Simon Singh for libel for saying about the BCA what I have just said about the GCC, but the BCA can sue because they are a company.http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/

[Trinoc]

I've never understood why the question of whether or not the BCA is entitled to sue was not settled first, before going into the contentious stuff about the meaning of Simon's article. If it should turn out the BCA is not entitled to sue, a lot of court and lawyers' time has been spent on other issues needlessly. Reluctant as I am to sympathise with the BCA, I think they may have been very badly advised to go this far without even knowing whether they have a leg to stand on. They would presumably have to pay all of everyone's costs so far if it turns out they have not.

[dizzyblonde2]

Jack has written an interesting article on the legal difference between the GCC and the BCA.

Jackofkent is always a good thought provoking read. As I see it, the BCA is NOT a government organisation like Derbyshire County Council and nor a statutory regulator like the general Chiropractic Council.

It is a company limited by guarantee and is the chiropractic equivilent of a trades union. Membership is open only to those who meet its membership criteria and it trades to benefit its membership in keeping with the articles and constitution set by the board of directors. It does have directors and it does receive income from 1) membership fees, 2) trading activities like sales of merchandise, conferences, CPD events.

It files accounts at Companies House and the tax office so to all intents and purposes it is a trading company.

It is not a regulator in the statutory sense, but does have a code of conduct and rules that its members must follow (or be expelled/admonished etc) just like any employer, trades union, charity or co-operative.

As a quasi trades union, I believe (and welcome jack's view on this) it is exempt from the Derbyshire ruling.

As to the question of payment for damages and whether the BCA has a reputation that could be considered 'damaged' by Simon's article I guess that the BCA would argue that as they represent over 40% of UK chiropractors and are the longest established chiropractic association in the UK, they are a leading light and well known organisation in the minds of the general public, UK chiropractic and international chiropractic.

Simon and skeptics (sounds like a 60s band) would assert otherwise.

Roll on 14th October for the next round of high court drama!

[Mojo]

As to the question of payment for damages and whether the BCA has a reputation that could be considered 'damaged' by Simon's article I guess that the BCA would argue that as they represent over 40% of UK chiropractors and are the longest established chiropractic association in the UK, they are a leading light and well known organisation in the minds of the general public, UK chiropractic and international chiropractic.
I think it was suggested that the BCA's income comes from membership subscriptions and damage to its reputation could reduce its ability to recruit members, and thus potentially cause financial damage.

[tolman]

I think it was suggested that the BCA's income comes from membership subscriptions and damage to its reputation could reduce its ability to recruit members, and thus potentially cause financial damage.
But surely, that could only easily happen in a direct way if chiropractors agreed with what Singh wrote, or at least suspected he was right.

Indirectly, it is possible that members might be annoyed with their promotional body failing to defend itself by means of legal action, and so leave.
However, even if the BCA wins the case, I'd imagine that quite a few members might think it would have been rather better if it *hadn't* gone down the legal route, and had instead done nothing, or taken the cheap and simple option of writing a rebuttal to be published.

[dizzyblonde2]

But surely, that could only easily happen in a direct way if chiropractors agreed with what Singh wrote, or at least suspected he was right.

Indirectly, it is possible that members might be annoyed with their promotional body failing to defend itself by means of legal action, and so leave.
However, even if the BCA wins the case, I'd imagine that quite a few members might think it would have been rather better if it *hadn't* gone down the legal route, and had instead done nothing, or taken the cheap and simple option of writing a rebuttal to be published.

Think of the BCA as a trade union. Members can choose to join or leave at any time. There are other associations they could join or choose to save the £600-£700 per year BCA members pay in subscriptions. This on top of the £1000 registration fee per annum to the GCC plus insurance premiums of around £500.

GCC renewals are done annually en bloc for the calendar year and one cannot be a member of the BCA if one is not registered with the GCC (otherwise one is not a chiroractor).

If even 10% of BCA members decide to hang up their queen's purcussors and stethoscopes, their income will fall substancially. Remember, the 611 complaints received at the GCC caused a financial headache until some bright spark came up with the idea of changing the rules and forcing those under investigation to continue paying their £1000 registration fee. Interestingly this rule change has been enacted through the privy council just in time for the end of year renewals process. There maybe 500+ BCA members who are thinking very carefully about the costs, financial and otherwise of being a chiropractor in the aftermath of the decision by their directors to sue the pants off Simon Singh.

NO BCA member is under any obligation to stay with the BCA. Indeed, there may be some who consider the Laningan Gambit of resigning from the GCC register and the BCA in a grand gesture and forgoing the use of the title Chiropractor. A saving of £1700 might look very appealing in the current financial climate and just having Trading Standards, the ASA and the occaisional watchdog journo to deal with could possibly be less stressful and time consuming.

[tolman]

There maybe 500+ BCA members who are thinking very carefully about the costs, financial and otherwise of being a chiropractor in the aftermath of the decision by their directors to sue the pants off Simon Singh.
But the BCA can't blame Singh for costs resulting from their ill-judged reaction to his article - the only costs they can morally claim he's responsible for are the costs they might reasonably have incurred if they hadn't taken legal action, but done something brighter (or nothing) instead.

If a neighbour's cat was scratching away at someone's flower bed, and the victim decided to use artillery in an attempt to scare or kill the cat, they could hardly blame their neighbour for the resulting craters.

[Blue Wode]

Interesting that Jack says that the following can be written perfectly safely about the General Chiropractic Council:


...I can type the following about a particular statutory corporation without any fear whatsoever:-

The General Chiropractic Council happily promotes (and regulates) bogus treatments for which there is not a jot of evidence.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/09/corporations-and-libel-what-is-bcas.html


BTW, Jack has another new - and equally interesting - blog post up today in which he has published a copy of his FOI request to the General Chiropractic Council:


I would like to make a freedom of information request to the GCC.

Please disclose to me all information which is held by the GCC in respect of the Happy Families leaflet issued and then withdrawn by the British Chiropractic Association. This information can include internal documents, correspondence with the BCA, and all metadata and other electronic information. The period for this information should date back to the GCC's first awareness of the leaflet.

In case you wrongly construe my request narrowly, I would like to remind you of your duty to assist under freedom of information legislation.

I would wish to make representations on the public interest in disclosure, in the event that any qualified exemption applies requiring a public interest balancing exercise. It is denied that there could be any public interest in non-disclosure should any qualified exemption apply, which is also denied.

-snip-

My reason in making this request is that it is appropriate - and indeed imperative - that the GCC now places into the public domain all information which it holds relating to this controversial leaflet, especially information about the BCA's promotion and withdraw of the leaflet.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-foi-request-to-gcc.html (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-foi-request-to-gcc.html)

[Blue Wode]

The following letter from Professor Edzard Ernst, which has great relevancy to this topic, is lifted from last month’s International Journal of Clinical Practice:


Re: Chiropractic for otitis?

Sir,

Many professional organisations of chiropractic such as the British Chiropractic Association (1), the Chiropractic Association of Ireland (2) or the American Chiropractic Association (3) state or imply that chiropractic is an effective treatment for ear infections. A recent survey furthermore demonstrates that 54% of UK chiropractors subscribe to this idea (4). So is there any evidence that it is true?

In an attempt to find all clinical trials on the subject, I conducted electronic literature searches in the following databases: Medline, Embase, Cinhal and AMED (September 2008). No language or time restrictions were imposed. To get included, an article needed to refer to a controlled clinical trial of chiropractic for ear infection (otitis). Case reports, case series and uncontrolled or feasibility studies were excluded.

These searches generated 35 hits. After removing duplicates, 27 articles were read. None of them met the inclusion criteria. Previous research has shown that professional chiropractic organisations ‘make claims for the clinical art of chiropractic that are not currently available scientific evidence…’ (5). The claim to effectively treat otitis seems to be one of them. It is time now, I think, that chiropractors either produce the evidence or abandon the claim.

E. Ernst
Complementary Medicine,
Peninsula Medical School,
25 Victoria Park Road,
Exeter EX2 4NT
UK

References

1. British Chiropractic association, 2009. http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk (http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/) (accessed January 2009).
2. Chiropractic Association of Ireland, 2008. http://www.chiropractic.ie (http://www.chiropractic.ie/) (accessed January 2009).
3. American Chiropractic Association, 2009, http://www.amerchiro.org (http://www.amerchiro.org/) (accessed January 2009).
4. Pollentier A, Langworthy JM. The scope of chiropractic practice: a survey of chiropractors in the UK. Clin Chiropractic 2007; 10: 147-55.
5. Grod JP, Sikorski D, Keating JC. Unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures from the largest State, Provincial, and National Chiropractic Associations and Research Agencies. J Man Phys Ther 2001; 24: 514-9.

Chiropractic for otitis? Int J Clin Pract, September 2009;63(9):1392-1393


Also relevant to this topic is the following blog post about a chiropractor who has lodged a complaint against the Australian Skeptics Group:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/announcements/chiropractor-lodges-complaint-against-australian-skeptics/ (http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/announcements/chiropractor-lodges-complaint-against-australian-skeptics/)

The Australian Skeptics’ excellent reply can be read here:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/announcements/chiropractor-lodges-complaint-against-australian-skeptics/ (http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/announcements/chiropractor-lodges-complaint-against-australian-skeptics/)

[Blue Wode]

Some more updates.

The full text of Edzard Ernst's recent paper 'Chiropractic spinal manipulation for infant colic: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials' is now available online:

In conclusion, the current evidence from RCTs does not show that chiropractic spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for infant colic. Further rigorous studies may be warranted.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122542377/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0


And two interesting new blog posts have just been produced concerning the General Chiropractic Council and the Adversting Standards Authority:

General Chiropractic Council to change patient leaflet
http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/10/general-chiropractic-council-to-change_06.html

I get anonymous chiropractic mail, I do!
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/10/i-get-anonymous-chiropractic-mail-i-do/

It's all becoming very intriguing.

[Trinoc]

I expect Ernst's conclusions are right, but I wonder ... if the study had come up with the opposite conclusion (chiropractic treatments are effective), would he still have published it?

[Matt]

I expect Ernst's conclusions are right, but I wonder ... if the study had come up with the opposite conclusion (chiropractic treatments are effective), would he still have published it?

I don't see why not, he's published when he's found herbal remedies to be effective e.g. topically applied capsaicin for neuropathic and neuralgic pain, P hybridus for seasonal allergic rhinitis, Sinupret and bromelain as adjunctive treatments in acute rhinosinusitis.

A pubmed search "(herbalism) AND (Ernst E[Auth])" found 104 results. These examples were swiftly scanned from the abstracts of just the first page.

[Trinoc]

I don't see why not, he's published when he's found herbal remedies to be effective e.g. topically applied capsaicin for neuropathic and neuralgic pain, P hybridus for seasonal allergic rhinitis, Sinupret and bromelain as adjunctive treatments in acute rhinosinusitis.

A pubmed search "(herbalism) AND (Ernst E[Auth])" found 104 results. These examples were swiftly scanned from the abstracts of just the first page.
Ernst is well known to be a supporter of herbal medicine. The same can not be said of chiropractic.

[Croydon Bob]

Ernst is well known to be a supporter of herbal medicine. The same can not be said of chiropractic.

Ernst's postion on various practices and substances is based on evidence, not on what he "supports". He has found evidence that some herbs do some things, he reported it; he's found no evidence to support chiropractic for anything other than back pain and has reported it.

You seem incapable of grasping a very simple process that is part of basic science and medicine. Instead you are suggesting, as the believers do, that there are two sides and that Ernst is biased against chiropractic in the same way that they are biased against facts.

[Blue Wode]

Ernst is well known to be a supporter of herbal medicine. The same can not be said of chiropractic.
Ernst has conceded that there may be some evidence for spinal manipulation (which is not 'chiropractic') for the relief of pain in a sub-group of low back pain sufferers, but even then it is no better than cheaper, equally effective options. It's worth noting that in addition to some herbal medicines, Ernst is also a supporter of biofeedback for hypertension, hypnosis for labour pain, acupoint stimulation for nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy, and acupuncture for osteoarthritis:
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=20&storycode=4123323&c=1

Along with most chiropractic interventions, Ernst also does not support many other CAM interventions including Bach Flower Remedies, Chelation Therapy, Colonic Irrigation, Craniosacral Therapy/Cranial Osteopathy, Crystal Therapy, Cupping, Detox, Ear Candling, Magnet Therapy, Reflexology, Reiki, Shiatsu and Spiritual Healing. [Ref: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial, pp.301-328] You can also safely add homeopathy to that list.

What reasons would he have to be biased?

[Matt]

Ernst is well known to be a supporter of herbal medicine. The same can not be said of chiropractic.

My suggestion is that he follows the evidence rather than the other way round. Didn't he used to be a well known supporter (and indeed practitioner) of other alternative modalities including homeopathy before he found the evidence for efficacy was lacking?

[Trinoc]

OK, let's step back from Edzard Ernst a bit. Let's imagine one of the skeptics here came across compelling evidence that some of the apparently nonsense claims of chiropractic were true. Would they be happy to post on here saying "Look, I was wrong all along ... here is the evidence"? If so, what sort of reaction would they receive from others? I think Croydon Bob's reaction to me in the post above would be mild by comparison.

So, getting back to Ernst ... suppose he did publish something saying chiropractic worked (other than for LBP) ... would skeptics (a) start to take chiropractic seriously, or (b) reject Ernst as a false skeptic?

Given that I suspect the answer is (b), would he not therefore be more inclined to go back and try to find something wrong with his data, rather than "publish and be damned"?

[Blue Wode]

OK, let's step back from Edzard Ernst a bit. Let's imagine one of the skeptics here came across compelling evidence that some of the apparently nonsense claims of chiropractic were true. Would they be happy to post on here saying "Look, I was wrong all along ... here is the evidence"? If so, what sort of reaction would they receive from others? I think Croydon Bob's reaction to me in the post above would be mild by comparison.

So, getting back to Ernst ... suppose he did publish something saying chiropractic worked (other than for LBP) ... would skeptics (a) start to take chiropractic seriously, or (b) reject Ernst as a false skeptic?

Given that I suspect the answer is (b), would he not therefore be more inclined to go back and try to find something wrong with his data, rather than "publish and be damned"?
IMO, no, Ernst wouldn't "be inclined to go back and try to find something wrong with his data". For example, see his paper on acupuncture in 2007:


Acupuncture: its evidence-base is changing

The effectiveness of acupuncture remains a controversial issue. The aim of this article is to evaluate trends over time in the development of the evidence-base of acupuncture. A comparison of two series of systematic reviews was conducted. The first related to the evidence-base in 2000, the second related to 2005. Both employed virtually the same methodology and criteria for evaluation. The results indicate that the evidence base has increased for 13 of the 26 conditions included in this comparison. For 7 indications it has become more positive (i.e. favoring acupuncture) and for 6 it had changed in the opposite direction. It is concluded, that acupuncture research is active. The emerging clinical evidence seems to imply that acupuncture is effective for some but not all conditions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17265547

[Croydon Bob]

OK, let's step back from Edzard Ernst a bit. Let's imagine one of the skeptics here came across compelling evidence that some of the apparently nonsense claims of chiropractic were true. Would they be happy to post on here saying "Look, I was wrong all along ... here is the evidence"? If so, what sort of reaction would they receive from others? I think Croydon Bob's reaction to me in the post above would be mild by comparison.

So, getting back to Ernst ... suppose he did publish something saying chiropractic worked (other than for LBP) ... would skeptics (a) start to take chiropractic seriously, or (b) reject Ernst as a false skeptic?

Given that I suspect the answer is (b), would he not therefore be more inclined to go back and try to find something wrong with his data, rather than "publish and be damned"?

That's just a big pile of false assumptions, straw men, etc. Did you take stupid pills this morning?

Just to be clear: If Ernst found evidence to support chiropractic then I would neither believe nor disbelieve. I would look at the evidence. That's what makes me a skeptic. You've suddenly decided today that skeptics are irrational idiots and that skepticism is a religion. You are wrong.

[Trinoc]

OK, the consensus seems to be that the answer to my original question is "no". If so, that is very good and restores a little of my faith in (skeptical) human nature. I will of course keep watching the evidence ... we are all human after all*.

[* Those of us who are non shape-shifting reptilians, of course.]

(Just got a "Will Robinson" ... Bob, do you suppose you could be a little bit less combative occasionally? It's not east to carry on a rational debate when accusations of stupidity are being shouted about the place. The validity or otherwise of an argument does not depend on how powerfully you can insult the opposition.)

[tolman]

Even if someone here believed that chiropractic very likely didn't work for condition X, they'd probably be interested in evidence that it might be, even if principally to examine the evidence and see if there were any obvious flaws in it, or to prepare themselves for someone else citing it in support of chiropractic.

[Trinoc]

Even if someone here believed that chiropractic very likely didn't work for condition X, they'd probably be interested in evidence that it might be, even if principally to examine the evidence and see if there were any obvious flaws in it, or to prepare themselves for someone else citing it in support of chiropractic.
Exactly, but the underlying assumption would be that it is still nonsense unless some really compelling evidence came to light.

I "know" God doesn't exist, I "know" homeopathic medicines can't possibly have any therapeutic effect, I "know" chiropractic can't treat colic. I also know that it would take a hell of a lot more evidence to convince me otherwise about any of these than I would require for any "plausible" scientific hypothesis. My "centre" of the universe of ideas is skewed well over to the rational, just as that of many others is skewed to the paranormal, and I would view any evidence for anything starting from that point. I would expect others to do the same. It's a good strategy, until you come across a completely bizarre, way-out idea that just happens to be right, then the whole process goes wrong.

[tolman]

Exactly, but the underlying assumption would be that it is still nonsense unless some really compelling evidence came to light.

I "know" God doesn't exist, I "know" homeopathic medicines can't possibly have any therapeutic effect, I "know" chiropractic can't treat colic. I also know that it would take a hell of a lot more evidence to convince me otherwise about any of these than I would require for any "plausible" scientific hypothesis. My "centre" of the universe of ideas is skewed well over to the rational, just as that of many others is skewed to the paranormal, and I would view any evidence for anything starting from that point. I would expect others to do the same. It's a good strategy, until you come across a completely bizarre, way-out idea that just happens to be right, then the whole process goes wrong.
'The whole process' doesn't go wrong. It's just that the inertia of past failed claims of efficacy will tend to drag on future claims of efficacy in a given field.
I'd see that as a feature, not a bug.

In any case, last time I looked, I wasn't responsible for approving treatments for the NHS, or even offering advice to a parent about treatment options for their child, so there's no obvious downside to me taking time to be convinced.

If I was in charge of approving treatments for funding, unless I was requiring an 'alternative' medical treatment to go through a more rigorous process of risk/benefit analysis than a regular medical treatment, even if I might personally be sceptical of the particular alternative field it came from, that skepticism wouldn't actually be a barrier to the treatment getting used.

[Blue Wode]

The latest development:

Chiropractors fail to smear Sense About Science
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/406

[Croydon Bob]

... Bob, do you suppose you could be a little bit less combative occasionally? It's not east to carry on a rational debate when accusations of stupidity are being shouted about the place. The validity or otherwise of an argument does not depend on how powerfully you can insult the opposition.

Do you think you could restrain yourself from collapsing into your ridiculous "I wonder if skeptics are actually the complete opposite of skeptics?" mode occasionally? It's not easy to carry on a rational debate when accusations of skeptical stupidity are being shouted about the place. The validity or otherwise of an argument does not depend on how you weakly create lots of straw men about us not being skeptics.

You didn't have an argument you just launched into a worthless straw man attack using the words "let's imagine". Therefore there is no question of the "validity" of your position. It was another pointless diversion from the thread.

[Trinoc]

Do you think you could restrain yourself from collapsing into your ridiculous "I wonder if skeptics are actually the complete opposite of skeptics?" mode occasionally? It's not easy to carry on a rational debate when accusations of skeptical stupidity are being shouted about the place. The validity or otherwise of an argument does not depend on how you weakly create lots of straw men about us not being skeptics.

You didn't have an argument you just launched into a worthless straw man attack using the words "let's imagine". Therefore there is no question of the "validity" of your position. It was another pointless diversion from the thread.
Yes, well perhaps we should occasionally stop behaving like a "we know it all" skeptics' playground gang sometimes and subject some of our own pronouncements to the same scrutiny as we insist on from everyone else.

[tolman]

Yes, well perhaps we should occasionally stop behaving like a "we know it all" skeptics' playground gang sometimes and subject some of our own pronouncements to the same scrutiny as we insist on from everyone else.
When you say 'we', it rather sounds like you're saying 'you'.

[Trinoc]

When you say 'we', it rather sounds like you're saying 'you'.
No. I mean "we". I know I'm not some sort of secular saint, incapable of bias, and I don't know anyone else who is either.

[Pebble]

Yes, well perhaps we should occasionally stop behaving like a "we know it all" skeptics' playground gang sometimes and subject some of our own pronouncements to the same scrutiny as we insist on from everyone else.

Sometimes indeed we should, but only occasionally. As Newton remarked, he saw further because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Incessantly questioning the solid foundations of current knowledge is a recipe for failure.

[tolman]

Failing to use past experience as a guide would be what I'd call stupidity, not 'being unbiased'.

Prejudice (educated guesswork) is only a handicap when it gets in the way of actual thinking. Up to that point, it's an indespensible part of much thinking and practical life.

[Blue Wode]

Jack of Kent summarises the background to next week's hearing on the Simon Singh libel case:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/simon-singh-background-to-next-hearing.html

[Blue Wode]

More developments related to this topic:

The General Chiropractic Council is knowingly and deliberately violating its own code of practice
http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/10/general-chiropractic-council-is.html

[Blue Wode]

Simon Singh wins permission to appeal!

See http://twitter.com/jackofkent



COURT 75
Before LORD JUSTICE LAWS

Wednesday, 14th October, 2009
Not Before 10 o'clock

APPLICATION
A2/2009/1196 British Chiropractic Association -v- Singh. Application of Defendant for permission to appeal.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_coacivil.htm


Updates from Jack of Kent on Twitter (you don't have to have an account to view them, just keep refreshing the page):
http://twitter.com/jackofkent

Also, BBC Newsnight last night carried a small clip of Jack of Kent talking at the Westminster Skeptics in the Pub campaign meeting, followed by a brief interview with Simon Singh. See 37:04 to 39:00 in. I think it's available for the next 7 days only:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ndt7t/Newsnight_13_10_2009/

[chaggle]

Also, BBC Newsnight last night carried a small clip of Jack of Kent talking at the Westminster Skeptics in the Pub campaign meeting, followed by a brief interview with Simon Singh. See 37:04 to 39:00 in. I think it's available for the next 7 days only:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ndt7t/Newsnight_13_10_2009/

I would really like to watch that but I can't because I'm not in the UK:sad:

Anyone know a way I can see it?

[Harryprice]

I would really like to watch that but I can't because I'm not in the UK:sad:

Anyone know a way I can see it?

Would a UK based anonymous proxy work?

[polomint38]

I would really like to watch that but I can't because I'm not in the UK:sad:

Anyone know a way I can see it?

Here is some

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMaqRddP7sI

[polomint38]

Here is some

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMaqRddP7sI

Here is the section about Trafigura, it puts it in context. It's in 2 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x04vIFmsJec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ww8y4GBMXg

[chaggle]

Would a UK based anonymous proxy work?

I will have to investigate


Here is some

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMaqRddP7sI

Well done polo, thanks both

[bindeweede]

Simon Singh wins permission to appeal!

See http://twitter.com/jackofkent


Updates from Jack of Kent on Twitter (you don't have to have an account to view them, just keep refreshing the page):
http://twitter.com/jackofkent

Also, BBC Newsnight last night carried a small clip of Jack of Kent talking at the Westminster Skeptics in the Pub campaign meeting, followed by a brief interview with Simon Singh. See 37:04 to 39:00 in. I think it's available for the next 7 days only:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ndt7t/Newsnight_13_10_2009/

According to an article in the "New Statesman",
Today's ruling means he is now free to convince the court of his own intepretation of the piece. In an explicit rebuttal of Eady, Mr Justice Laws described his ruling as "legally erroneous".http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/fourth-estate/2009/10/simon-singh-libel-case

[bindeweede]

We all stood up as the Judge entered and Simon’s lawyer addressed the Judge. We were under strict instructions of no tweeting, blogging, farting or recording, so I am unable to give you a full transcript, however, please allow me to paraphrase…

Lawyer Dude: “You’re most worthy eminence, sir, your majesty whatever etc etc. We have given you a shit load of documentation explaining why Simon should be given permission to appeal, do you want me to go through the 4 major points”

Justice Law: “Nah, I can’t be arsed to go through all that as you’ve written far too much, anyway I’ve already made up my mind to grant Simon permission for a full appeal and Simon will be allowed to re-argue it was fair comment. Now bugger off and try and write something a bit shorter for the full appeal.
I may not have used the exact words, but you get the general idea.;D

http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2009/10/simon-singh-has-won-permission-for-full.html

[Trinoc]

The BCA have just put out a press release in which they now accuse Simon Singh of deliberate malice in the original article, despite the Judge's comments yesterday about there being no question about his good faith.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/bca-now-alleging-malice-by-simon-singh.html

I wonder whether this could be the basis for a counter claim by Simon for defamation.

Needless to say, JoK is on the case. He suggests saving the release (done here), presumably in case it vanishes from the web, but not actually publishing it further quite yet. I'll bow to his reasoning on the logic behind this latter request.

[tolman]

I love the

This claim has been brought to restore the good reputation of the BCA and that of its members.

I wonder how they think that's working out for them?

I also wonder whether withdrawing the leaflet making the claims that Simon Singh was criticising in the first place was important in their attempt to restore confidence, or merely coincidental.

Finally, I wonder if they think that their making claims of having a 'plethora of evidence', and then failing to produce anything of significance succeeded as part of their strategy for restoring their reputation?

[DrS]

I love the
"restore the good reputation of the BCA "

... I also wonder whether withdrawing the leaflet making the claims that Simon Singh was criticising in the first place ...
At least they seem to be acknowledging that it has taken a hit! ;D

I wonder whether withdrawing the leaflet making the claims that are now to be a subject of Simon's appeal will be useful in any way to suggest the BCA's open acceptance of the claims' ineffectiveness (at best).

[Trinoc]

According to Jack of Kent, Simon now probably has an indefensible case for libel against the BCA, should he choose to pursue it. The only sensible action for the BCA now may well be to throw in the towel. "Own goal" hardly begins to describe it.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/bca-defame-simon-singh.html

I'm almost disappointed if it really does end with a whimper like this. Almost.

[Blue Wode]

Story unfolding from post #849 here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121214&page=22

[Blue Wode]

Good blog post at Science Based Medicine today on the BCA/Simon Singh case, and the complaint received by Australian Skeptics from chiropractor, Joseph Ierano, regarding the skeptics' re-posting of “Beware the Spinal Trap”:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2385 (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2385)

On a related matter, still no clarification from the UK General Chiropractic Council on the essential differences between scientific manual therapy and chiropractic philosophy (vitalism/innate intelligence/subluxations):
http://www.spinewizards.org.uk/ (http://www.spinewizards.org.uk/)

[zeno]

Lovin the www.spinewizards.org.uk URL!

[Blue Wode]

BCA v Singh: Court of Appeal Permission to Appeal (full text):
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/11/bca-v-singh-court-of-appral-permission.html

[Blue Wode]

The latest from Simon Singh on the libel reform campaign:
http://twitter.com/SLsingh (http://twitter.com/SLsingh)

[Blue Wode]

Permission to Appeal judgment now online:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1154.html

[Blue Wode]

New blog post from Edzard Ernst at Pulse (registration is free):


The General Chiropractic Council and its retracted claim

12 Nov 09

Simon Perry is a well-known and relentless campaigner against pseudo-science.


Recently he complained to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) about claims made in a patient information leaflet published by the UK General Chiropractic Council (GCC). The passage in question read as follows:

There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that you may see an improvement in some types of:

• asthma
• headaches, including migraine and
• infant colic

http://m1.2mdn.net/viewad/817-grey.gif (http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v8/38e3/0/0/%2a/f;44306;0-0;0;23252290;1-468/60;0/0/0;;~sscs=%3f)
As a result of Perry’s action, the GCC withdrew the leaflet (http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/10/general-chiropractic-council-to-change_06.html). It was amended and has been republished with the following wording (http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/WhatCanIExpect_1.pdf).

A review is being carried out of the evidence as to whether chiropractic may ease some of the symptoms of some types of:

asthma
headaches, including migraine and
infant colic
This move seems important in several ways. It means that the GCC probably realized that the original claims were not based on sound data – if not they would only had to provide the evidence and the ASA could have evaluated it. This tacit admission might now influence several current disputes around chiropractic.

The GCC is presently dealing with about 600 complaints against chiropractors making claims of the types listed above. Having more or less admitted that they are not supported by evidence, the GCC could have to discipline all of these 600 individuals. Similarly, it may well impact on the high-profile Simon Singh case.

I think there might be a lesson in all this. The best advice for the future is, I think, to abstain from making unsubstantiated claims in the first place. This saves all the legal hassle and – crucially – does not put patients at risk.

Editor's note
- Pulse contacted the General Chiropractic Council for its response to this column.

Margaret Coats, chief executive, confirmed that the council had 'amended the wording [of the patient information leaflet] in consultation with the ASA'.

She declined to make any comment on the council's 'regulatory business'.




http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=20&storycode=4124312&c=1


Isn't the GCC's 'regulatory business' about protecting the public?

[DrS]

There is some evidence, though more research is needed, that you may see an improvement in some types of ...

A review is being carried out of the evidence as to whether chiropractic may ease some of the symptoms of some types of ...

I wonder how differently this revised version will read in general terms. The second version still refers to "evidence", which implicitly exists otherwise how could a review be carried out. I think that to many the two versions will sound the same.

In fact, the second one could even be read as more emphatic than the first. With the first, there is just "some" evidence, and an acknowledgement that more is needed. In the second, the "evidence" is already there and a review is underway, which suggests the evidence was felt to warrant a review.

>:-)

[Bob Lloyd]

You have to wonder what did the most harm to chiropractor reputations, the original article by Singh, or the absurd libel case brought by the BCA. Now that the GCC is retracting it's dodgy leaflet wording, that surely puts the BCA more and more out on a limb.

One can only imagine the anger that must be felt by the BCA members who thought that by joining a trade organisation, their business interests would be protected, and instead found that their "professional" body was actually embarrassing the hell out of them and forcing them to justify their fanciful marketing claims. With friends like that...

Maybe now the BCA will have enough sense to drop the case before they start losing all their members. Would you join a trade organisation that dropped the sticky stuff on you from a great height?

[Blue Wode]

A related development:

Zeno's response to the Pittilo Consultation on the proposed regulation of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine is a must read as it gets to the heart of the problem regarding the (lack of) protection of the public from unscrupulous practices/practitioners. He uses the UK General Chiropractic Council as an example of how "statutory regulation has spectacularly failed in the most fundamental of areas: that of protecting the public from bogus claims":
http://www.zenosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pittilo-Consultation-Response.pdf

Lifted from this blog post:
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/11/regulating-nonsense-my-response/

[Bob Lloyd]

Excellent document from Zeno, though it's doubtful that any politicians will be willing to do anything to encroach on these profitable businesses, however dishonest their claims. Governments don't do anything to upset business.

They'll only fall in behind a movement of people rejecting this Woo nonsense, and then only if it's big enough to provide some political embarrassment. Zeno's campaign to report the chiropractors ironically depended on the fact that they had to be registered, otherwise he'd have had nothing to report. As he said himself, you can't regulate nonsense.

I'm looking forward to next year when Singh gets his time in court, but I suspect the BCA will looks for a settlement long before then. I wonder how Singh will react when that approach is made. We could all understand it if he just wanted the hassle to go away.

[panama]

I rather hope that Singh is a man of priciple ( the evidence suggests it) and will take this all the way.

[Blue Wode]

Under the Freedom of Information Act the Charity Commission has now handed the Guardian the complaints it received - and dismissed - over Sense about Science and Simon Singhs' legal battle:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/nov/17/simon-singh-libel-case-british-chiropractic-association-sense-about-science

The link includes 11 pages of full text (which can be read on full screen) "in the interests of having the details out in the open as much as possible".

[Blue Wode]

Re the Guardian article above, when in full screen use the Zoom + icon at the foot of the page to make the document legible.

[Blue Wode]

Latest...

The General Chiropractic Council appears to be avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests:
http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/11/gcc-is-avoiding-foia-requests.html