British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[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_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPan el.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

Follow-up post:
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/...t/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

[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/200...fights-on.html

And the skeptical bloggers also fight on:
Will Trading Standards now take on the General Chiropractic Council?
http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot...w-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/1...ubmed_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/20...ins-libel-laws

[Blue Wode]

And don't miss the interesting blog post that's just been put up here:
http://www.thinkabouthealth.org/2009...mon-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.