British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Rolfe]

Yes, but how do you tell the best hairdresser in town? The one with the worst haircut! You can't do chiropractic manipulation on yourself.

It's a thought. I wonder what the uptake of chiropractic care is among chiropractors themselves? Do they all go to a colleague for that regular maintenance treatment they tout to their patients?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Rolfe.

 

[Blue Wode]

You can't do chiropractic manipulation on yourself.

Apparently you can:

"...self adjusting is demonstrated in the video/DVD for the single person..."

Do-it-yourself Chiropractic Care
http://www.home-chiropractic.com/

Bearing in mind that chiropractors are prone to cultish behaviour, I'm in agreement with this:

If anyone benefits from living the “chiropractic lifestyle” it should be chiropractors themselves. Who else would be the best living examples
of the health and longevity benefits of chiropractic care if not chiropractors themselves?

http://www.jcca-online.org/client/cca/JCCA.nsf/objects/V48-3-P217-224/$file/V48-3-P217-224.pdf

 

[shuttlt]

Forget about mechanism, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

It occurs to me that if you could pin vitalists down to what it means in practical terms for a technique to work, or not work in a vitalist context it would be a very great improvement.

 

[Blue Wode]

David Colquhoun comments on the BMJ's recent editorial and articles on the BCA v. Singh case:

We are dealing with fantasists. Worse still, we are dealing with fantasists whose income depends on defending their fantasies. You can point out to your heart’s content that “subluxations” are figment of the chiropractors’ imagination, but they don’t give a damn. They aren’t interested in what’s true and what isn’t.

More...
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1882

 

[BillyJoe]

BW,

That interesting link sent me off on interesting link after interesting link so that it was only by luck that I found my way back again through cyberspace to where it all started with that interesting link.

BTW, thanks for sending the info from the BMJ a week or so ago. That also sent me off on an interesting journey through cyberspace though, on that occasion, I never found my way back to the source, hence this (I was going to say belated, but I hate that world for some reason) thank-you note.

BJ

 

[AndyD]

David asks in his comments which parts the BMJ lawyers might find libelous. I can't comment on his blog but I'd assume...

You can point out to your heart’s content that “subluxations” are figment of the chiropractors’ imagination, but they don’t give a damn. They aren’t interested in what’s true and what isn’t.

...could be construed as a statement of fact.

But then, I'm not a lawyer and since it doesn't target an individual or specific organisation, perhaps it can't be defamatory.

 

[Blue Wode]

Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, has now allowed free access to the relevant articles and responses covering the libel case:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul08_4/b2766

 

[Mojo]

OT: I see Milgrom has replied, and is now accusing Shang et al of cherry-picking. Perhaps he hasn't seen the comprehensive rebuttal of this accusation Paul Wilson published in homeopathy.

/OT

 

[Blue Wode]

Lionel Milgrom has had a third response published today, along with responses from David Colquhoun and Edzard Ernst:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/jul08_4/b2783#216881

Unfortunately, the BMJ's lawyers have censored parts of DC's response, but your can compare the altered response with his original one here:
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1882

 

[Mojo]

Lionel has now fulfilled Godwin's law:

Indeed, ten years later, voices were raised within the nursing profession concerning EBM’s intolerance of therapeutic pluralism in healthcare systems [5]

...

5. Holmes D, Murray SJ, Perron A, Rail G. Deconstructing the evidence- based discourse in health sciences: Truth, power, and fascism. International Journal of Evidence Based Healthcare 2006;4:180.

 

[Pipirr]

That Holmes paper was the reason I originally signed up on the JREF forum. Randi had mentioned it in the commentary.

You know, there is a good case to be made for moving away from EBM...

 

[Pipirr]

A little more on the fallout from the BCA libel case.

Nick Cohen argues in The Observer that UK libel laws have effectively silenced UK academics that could expose financial shenanigans in the City.

But they are not going to speak out for a reason readers of this column will guess: Johnson and his colleagues fear being hauled before the libel courts. Academics have noted the willingness of the judiciary to allow believers in "alternative" chiropractic therapy to sue science writer Simon Singh, and can imagine all too graphically what would happen to them. Chiropractors are small-time operators working from suburban offices, one said. Bankers have the most expensive lawyers in the City on call. If his colleagues were to hint that a bank was risking its investors' money, they would be hammered.

 

[BillyJoe]

The following is an explanation of the situation described in that article (as summarised in above quote):

the average British judge does not believe that free debate in the marketplace of the mind will expose "wrong opinions and practices". He believes they must be suppressed because he retains the fear of the old European aristocracy that the masses cannot see through dangerous ideas and bad arguments. To speak plainly, if I may, the judiciary has an elite suspicion of democracy and the price of its elitism is becoming too high for this impoverished country to bear.

The judiciary is killing free speech which is the central tenet of democracy.

 

[Blue Wode]

Warning: The spin in the quote below might make you giddy…

Lifted from page 10 of the World Federation of Chiropractic’s Quarterly Report (June 2009):

The BCA, accused of being deliberately dishonest, sued for libel and won in a High Court ruling on May 7, 2009. However, the BCA is not doing as well in the court of public opinion, where Singh and supporters are establishing the perception that the BCA is trying to block scientific debate through legal action.

As a result multiple complaints have been laid against chiropractors with the General Chiropractic Council for breach of its standards on advertising relative to information appearing on websites of BCA members.

Good luck to the BCA as it continues to confront resourceful opponents while it seeks to promote chiropractic on a level playing field with the medical profession. This means, for example, that controlled trials remain the gold standard in research but are not a prerequisite for medical, chiropractic or other health care practice—the great majority of which is not supported by good controlled trial evidence.

http://www.wfc.org/Website/wfc/Graphics.nsf/Graphics/QWRJune2009/$file/QWR June.pdf

Other interesting snippets -

From p.4

Invited experts Briggance, Branson and Hawk asked what Bram Briggance PhD from California called the one big question from the point of view of all other stakeholders in national healthcare systems – “what is the value of chiropractic?”

The answer given, the core value of chiropractic, was conservative, cost-effective, *patient-approved* spine care.

No mention of evidence-based care.

From p.6:

WFC Honor Awards for outstanding lifetime contributions to the international growth of the chiropractic profession went to Dr. David Cassidy of Toronto, one of the profession’s leading researchers, and to Dr. Arlan Fuhr, President of Activator Methods, for his contributions to the fields of both chiropractic technique and clinical research.

Interestingly, David Cassidy’s integrity was recently called into question by a chiropractic victim's mother, Sharon Mathiason. It's worth a read:
http://www.chirowatch.com/Chiro-strokes/gm080120stroke.html

There's more criticism of Cassidy’s research methods here,
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=170

and a critique of Activator methods here:
http://www.chirobase.org/06DD/activator.html

 

[Blue Wode]

Zeno on "The somewhat muted support for the BCA by the World Federation of Chiropractic":
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/07/somewhat-muted-support-for-bca-by-world.html

 

[Deetee]

Nothing to add except my encouragement, and the desire to see this thread outstrip the evolution thread in responses, so it now ranks as #1!

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think it goes by number of replies though, but latest reply.

 

[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

 

[volatile]

Why is he still repeating the "We weren't allowed to reply in the Guardian" line?

 

[Lothian]

He says "The BCA .... supports high quality research which objectively informs and evolves the evidence base and would exhort chiropractors to modify their practices where conclusive evidence demonstrates ineffectiveness or a real risk of serious adverse events. "

Can he explain why high quality evidence demonstrates ineffectiveness was not passed to the court. Perhaps their support is theoretical and not practical.