British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Blue Wode]

Edzard Ernst's response to Richard Brown published in the BMJ today:

The vice president of the BCA regrets that I “deconstructed a single sentence of [his] paper and selectively overlooked the main thrust of the article”. What I did was to analyse the evidence he had provided. It would have been fun to deconstruct the rest of his article – but would he have sued me for libel?

And by the way, contrary to what Brown states the “competing interests” of my article[1] do mention that I publish the book “Trick or Treatment” with Simon Singh – but thanks for the plug anyway.

References

(1) Ernst E. Chiropractic for paediatric conditions: substantial evidence? BMJ 2009; 339:b2766.

Competing interests: None declared

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/jul08_4/b2766#217424

(Don't miss the other interesting new responses.)

 

[Mojo]

Edzard Ernst's response to Richard Brown published in the BMJ today:



(Don't miss the other interesting new responses.)

I can't see anything more recent than Richard Brown's "Criticism of Chiropractors: No Competing Interests" response from yesterday.

 

[Blue Wode]

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

 

[Mojo]

The other link is working as well now.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Important and urgent

Deleted

 

[AndyD]

The BCA wanted a retraction and an apology, which they didn't get. They were offered a chance to put their counter-arguments in The Guardian but reportedly declined it and went for libel suit instead.

Yep, I got that - but I don't think Brown or the BCA have ever said they weren't offered an opportunity to reply.

The first mention I ever saw of such an offer was in Singh's summary of the saga at SAS. Assuming Singh's summary to be accurate (and I've not seen it disputed), the BCA have been strangely silent on why they chose to ignore that offer and go to court.

I wish one of the psychics on these forums would pop in and tell us all how this is going to end. My "guides" insist the BCA will find some way to pull out (cry poor and/or blame vexatious, witch-hunting bloggers - need to rally the troops to fight this "new foe" then claim the blog-attack is proof they have suffered a loss of reputation and blame Singh - maybe), the case will be dismissed, both sides will be out of pocket and chiropractic will continue with very little practical change and homeopaths will worry that focus will revert to them.

 

[Blue Wode]

Deleted.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Thanks. While you were posting I was finding it. Please can I ask that you edit these posts out of existence.

Mine's going now.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Yep, I got that - but I don't think Brown or the BCA have ever said they weren't offered an opportunity to reply.

While I would have difficulty proving my negative, my point is that I don't think the BCA has ever mentioned that they were offered a right of reply. Instead we get all this injured innocence and the implication that the need to sue for libel was thrust upon them.

 

[Mojo]

Quite apart from anything else, the Grauniad routinely allows anyone who has been written about a right to reply. They reserve about a quarter of the letters page (one of the more prominent pages in the paper) each day for a "Response" column.

That, for example, is where Rustum Roy's article defending homoeopathy in response to Ben Goldacre appeared. Of course, it does have the disadvantage that people are usually allowed to comment on the online version, so their "plethora" might not have fared too well...

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Simon Baker (or Simon Bates as Lionel Milgrom knows him) has posted some pointed questions that the BCA should be made to answer.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/jul08_4/b2766#217385

I wonder whether Richard Brown will reappear to give those answers.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

On the other hand, Milgrom seems to be going from bad to worse with a portmanteau post that contains almost every example that we have ever seen of midrepresentation of the evidence base for homeopathy and feeble arguments to excuse it from the scrutiny of RCTs.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/jul08_4/b2783#217336

He is effectively saying, "There is loads of high-quality evidence for homeopathy, but we don't need it. Leave us alone."

He seems to have no recollection or recognition whatsoever that everything he says has been demolished more times than I can count.

 

[Deetee]

On the other hand, Milgrom seems to be going from bad to worse with a portmanteau post that contains almost every example that we have ever seen of midrepresentation of the evidence base for homeopathy and feeble arguments to excuse it from the scrutiny of RCTs.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/jul08_4/b2783#217336

He is effectively saying, "There is loads of high-quality evidence for homeopathy, but we don't need it. Leave us alone."

He seems to have no recollection or recognition whatsoever that everything he says has been demolished more times than I can count.

Hope Simon "Bates" or Les Rose can concisely knock him back. Singlehandedly he has taken the discussion from libel/science/chiro onto his own pet topic. All we need now is Dullman to join in.

 

[Mojo]

On the other hand, Milgrom seems to be going from bad to worse with a portmanteau post that contains almost every example that we have ever seen of midrepresentation of the evidence base for homeopathy and feeble arguments to excuse it from the scrutiny of RCTs.

I like the paper he cites as evidence that homoeopaths pioneered RCTs. It is actually the same type of test that homoeopaths have repeatedly dodged (and would be perfectly suitable for the MDC), in which given a number of vials they were asked to correctly identify verum and placebo in a proving trial. The results are described as "disappointing".

The reference he uses to support his numbers for "positive, inconclusive, and negative" trials/reviews ("6. See, www.anhcampaign.org/practitioners/homeopathy:") doesn't work, so we can't check those. It's probable though that they are one of the sets of numbers periodically issued by the BHA/FoH (the numbers he gives match this version, although it isn't the most recent), which pay no attention to study quality or potential bias.

ETA: we're going a bit off-topic again, aren't we?

 

[AndyD]

As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials.

Well the effect is plausible, utilises well-understood physical principles and doesn't require faith (or placebo) to work but, beyond that, what kid hasn't tied a plastic army character to a handkerchief and seen, first hand, the difference between a functioning and non-functioning parachute? Who hasn't seen what happens to a drag racer when the chute doesn't pop?

I guess these would dismissed as anecdotes but, again, the function of a parachute is plausible. What would a "homeopathic" parachute look like?

Yes, we are drifting off topic. Things have gone a little quiet on the chiro front (even the blogs have fallen virtually silent).

Richard D Rawlins:
Competing interests: These discussions are about CAM and libel. I have interests in honesty in healthcare, and the application of science rather than semantics. This may conflict with the approaches taken by some others in these pages.

Ouch!

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

ETA: we're going a bit off-topic again, aren't we?

When Milgrom is the subject, the correct phrase is 'off-planet'.

I hope that helps.

 

[Rolfe]

I think the parachute analogy is relevant, just not in the way Milgrom would like it to be.

The effect and benefit of a parachute is self-evident. It is also not entirely uncontrolled. Even if nobody has set up a formal trial, there have been quite enough naturally-occurring instances of falls from particular heights without parachutes to give us a pretty good idea of the probability that the parachute is having a real effect.

As I'm pretty fed up pointing out, if homoeopathy (or chiropractic, to keep this on-topic) had anything even closely resembling a self-evident effect, we woudln't actually be having this conversation.

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

As I'm pretty fed up pointing out, if homoeopathy (or chiropractic, to keep this on-topic) had anything even closely resembling a self-evident effect, we woudln't actually be having this conversation.

Ah, but they do. It's just that they are only self-evident to highly trained and intelligent people, and vanish completely if anyone else looks too hard.

 

[AndyD]

And, steering things back toward topic,

Simon at Adventures in Nonsense has posted an update in the results of the GCC complaints campaign...

56 Chiropractor Practices Still Holding Out With Colic Claims
The vast majority of BCA chiropractors have now removed their claims to treat colic as a result of my previous letters and the campaign by Zeno.

But still 56 practices still hold out, with the claims still available on their web site. I have listed the text of these claims below, along with the web site URL....

 

[Mojo]

Meanwhile in Australia: Chiropractors want doctors banned from spinal manipulation.

Some splendid comments there.