British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[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...-decision.html

[Trinoc]

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009...-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/ )

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


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


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


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

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 £60,000 over the News of the World’s exposé 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/new...cle6446411.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.as...de=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

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

McTimoney Chiropractic Assocition cut and run
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


Also, there's a new, critical post on chiropractic for children here
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/


ETA: Don't panic! Mr Mainwaring!
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/don...ainwaring.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

[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/view...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

[Trinoc]

It gets better all the time ...