British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Hi guys. Was just browsing for incriminating stuff on the BCA, came across this thread and realised I haven't posted here for a while (or even that much!). How do you guys find the time? So many forums and blogs!

Keep up the good work! :)
 
A bit late for Simon, but couldn't he say in his defence that it was all due to a typo?
"Not a lot of evidence" and "bonus"?
It is the grauniad, after all.
 
If all that matters according to the British libel laws is not that a claim is true but that the person making it sincerely believes it to be true, then surely all Singh has to do is to point out that he sincerely believes that these chiropractic claims are bogus and there's no case against him.
 
Pixel42 said:
If all that matters according to the British libel laws is not that a claim is true but that the person making it sincerely believes it to be true, then surely all Singh has to do is to point out that he sincerely believes that these chiropractic claims are bogus and there's no case against him.
Click to expand...
Not quite. In cases of libel it is for the person the claim is brought against to prove that what they said is true. Belief does not come into libel.

The belief part arises purely out of the term "bogus". The Judge ruled that bogus means that the the person selling the bogus treatment knows it does not work.
 
Lothian said:
The belief part arises purely out of the term "bogus". The Judge ruled that bogus means that the the person selling the bogus treatment knows it does not work.
Click to expand...
Which can also be correct. The problem is that to most of us in the skeptical scene it is obvious that Simon Singh used the expression as a synonym of "worthless" without implying criminal tendencies of the BCA. The judge combined "bogus" with "not a jot of evidence" to be a pretty strong statement implying that there is no evidence whatsoever (even untrustworthy evidence) and that the BCA according to Simon Singh knew this, and still "happily" promoted their "bogus" treatment. Judge Eade regarded this as a verifiable fact which I believe means that the case is quite clear to him: if the BCA can some up with evidence that the treatments works, no matter if this evidence is scientifically worthless, the BCA will win the case.

I think that Simon Singh can only wiggle his way out of this situation by contending the judge's understanding of a "jot of evidence" and "bogus". I do not think that "bogus" alone is enough to sway the court.
 
Last edited:
Those 27 papers. Are they medical/ scientific ?

Are recent posters suggesting that because of the individual Judge's view, this case is about subjective hypotheses and not about objectively established evidence ?
A circular argument which is based upon its own spin ?

Cheers ......... Graham.
worldwideweb GMweb1 net
 
steenkh said:
Which can also be correct. The problem is that to most of us in the skeptical scene it is obvious that Simon Singh used the expression as a synonym of "worthless" without implying criminal tendencies of the BCA. The judge combined "bogus" with "not a jot of evidence" to be a pretty strong statement implying that there is no evidence whatsoever (even untrustworthy evidence) and that the BCA according to Simon Singh knew this, and still "happily" promoted their "bogus" treatment. Judge Eade regarded this as a verifiable fact which I believe means that the case is quite clear to him: if the BCA can some up with evidence that the treatments works, no matter if this evidence is scientifically worthless, the BCA will win the case.
Click to expand...

My interpretation is different... my understanding is that Dr. Singh was saying that the treatments are bogus, and the BCA is happily promoting them - implied: because tragically they don't regard them as bogus. An accusation of different criteria for accepting that something 'works'.

The BCA read differently, and felt libelled. They interpret him to have said (paraphrased): the treatments are bogus, and the BCA is happily promoting them - implied: even though they know they're bogus. An accusation of fraud.


I think that Simon Singh can only wiggle his way out of this situation by contending the judge's understanding of a "jot of evidence" and "bogus". I do not think that "bogus" alone is enough to sway the court.
Click to expand...

No: he's screwed, because the point of the ruling was to determine whether the BCA's interpretation was even remotely credible. The judge has ruled that a reasonable person would interpret the passage to be an accusation of fraud.

What he has to do now, is prove that he was 'correct' in accusing them of fraud, which will not be resolved by proving that the treatments don't work - he has to prove that the BCA knows they don't work.

This is doubly disheartening, because Dr. Singh does not actually believe that the BCA is deliberately promoting treatments they know don't work, but in order to defend himself, he is challenged to prove this. Secondly, I can't imagine anything that could prove this, short of internal memos of the BCA confessing to some sort of diabolical plan to defraud patients. These guys are true believers.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
My interpretation is different... my understanding is that Dr. Singh was saying that the treatments are bogus, and the BCA is happily promoting them - implied: because tragically they don't regard them as bogus. An accusation of different criteria for accepting that something 'works'.
Click to expand...
That is also my interpretation, but it was not the judge's, and what I was trying to say is that his interpretation is not an impossible one. Judge Eade put much emphasis on the "not a jot of evidence" part, without which Simon Singh would have had an easier time.

No: he's screwed, because the point of the ruling was to determine whether the BCA's interpretation was even remotely credible. The judge has ruled that a reasonable person would interpret the passage to be an accusation of fraud.
Click to expand...
That is also how I see Dr. Singh's problem.

What he has to do now, is prove that he was 'correct' in accusing them of fraud, which will not be resolved by proving that the treatments don't work - he has to prove that the BCA knows they don't work.
Click to expand...
He cannot do so, because as you say it yourself, he does not believe it to be the case. His only option, if he wants to continue the libel case, is to appeal Judge Eade's ruling. We have been told that it would be very unusual for a higher court to repeal such a ruling.

If I had enough money and was in a similar quandary as Dr Singh, I would settle the case with an apology for having implied that the BCA was aware that their treatments are bogus. And I would have stressed that the "not a jot of evidence" of course only referred to credible evidence. And then I would probably have got a new libel suit to deal with, or possibly a ruling of contempt of court.
 
steenkh said:
That is also my interpretation, but it was not the judge's, and what I was trying to say is that his interpretation is not an impossible one.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you're completely ignorant of the English language and human nature. But Justice Eady is a native English speaker and should know what "bogus" means.
 
The perpetually marvellous Gimpy blogs here - http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009...campaign-against-simon-singh-and-applaud-bca/

"Homeopathy worked for me" posted
http://www.homeopathyworkedforme.org/#/full-story-free-speech/4533927252
I've taken the opportunity to write to the Observer to counter any response this campaign might have, and thank the Guardian newspapers for the support I mentioned in my previous post at
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4711928&postcount=182
and also for their science coverage in general, which many will know includes Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" column.

I think now is a good time to show a strong backing from our community.
 
Maybe there is so much publicity about the libel action more people will end up knowing the truth anyway. Or am I reading too much in this forum?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom