British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Mojo · Jul 30, 2009

AndyD said:
Is that in the print Guardian too?

Today's edition, main section, page 28 (comment/editorial pages).

jay.tarnoff · Jul 30, 2009

Asolepius said:
The majority of the citations do not address the questions at issue. Klougart et al is a well known uncontrolled survey of no scientific value. Bronfort et al admit that any benefit has nothing to do with manipulation - so why does BCA cite it? I will have to read the others but I am not impressed by the titles of the journals.

Dr. Novella mentioned the EXACT same thing! The BCA was challenged to produce their best evidence for the effects of chiropractic medicine, and this is what they can up with. Dr. Novella also criticized these studies for the small n and questioned why any of the larger studies that showed negative results were not included in the list.

jay.tarnoff · Jul 30, 2009

Mojo said:
Today's edition, main section, page 28 (comment/editorial pages).

Here a link from Ben Goldacre from yesterday's Guardian post.

AndyD · Jul 30, 2009

Richard Lanigan's chiropracticlive blog has been a constant source of fascination for sceptical bloggers covering the Singh saga and today is no different:

The difficulties facing the chiropractic profession are not helped by the “comedian” leading the British Chiropractic Association.

In the latest BCA members Newsletter “In Touch” the President of the BCA Tony Metcalfe reassures members and advises them to keep the Simon Singh issue “in perspective”. He asks “how many of your patients are aware of what is going on? I can tell you that none of my patients have raised any issues of concern with me and are not in the slightest bit interested in the Singh legal action”

So, if the president of the BCA is saying the Singh article is having no impact on chiropractic, not even on the practice of the president of the BCA, then can anyone explain how the Singh article can be argued to be have defamed the BCA?

rjh01 · Jul 30, 2009

shuttlt · Jul 30, 2009

AndyD said:
Richard Lanigan's chiropracticlive blog has been a constant source of fascination for sceptical bloggers covering the Singh saga and today is no different:

So, if the president of the BCA is saying the Singh article is having no impact on chiropractic, not even on the practice of the president of the BCA, then can anyone explain how the Singh article can be argued to be have defamed the BCA?

The whole thing has resulted in the BCA losing face within chiropractic, so in that sense, perhaps... but that's more to do with their own actions.

Blue Wode · Jul 31, 2009

News just in:

Friday, 31 July 2009

Simon Singh Loses First Attempt At Permission To Appeal

The Court Office today confirmed to me that, in an Order sealed on 30 July 2009, the Court of Appeal has refused Simon Singh's application for permission to appeal (PTA).

Letters were sent to the parties yesterday (but there is a post strike in London).

Simon Singh needed PTA because permission to appeal had been refused at first instance at the preliminary hearing in May.

There are no further details yet, including reasons.

I understand that this refusal may now mean he can make an "oral renewal" before the Court of Appeal.

More information will be provided as it becomes available.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/07/simon-singh-loses-first-attempt-at.html

Blue Wode · Jul 31, 2009

The BCA have released a statement on the ruling:
http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/BCA Statement 31st July 2009.pdf

volatile · Jul 31, 2009

To trial, then?

AndyD · Jul 31, 2009

A LOCKED PDF AGAIN??!!!! Who used LOCKED files for media releases??!!! What possible purpose can there be in locking something you actually WANT others to repeat on your behalf (and I assume they would want a media release re-published)?

BCA Statement 31st July 2009
BCA v. SIMON SINGH
The BCA notes the decision of Lord Justice Keene sealed in the Court of Appeal on 30 July
2009, to refuse Dr Simon Singh the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal. It looks forward
concluding this matter in due course to allow both parties to move forward constructively.

According to Jack of Kent (May, 2009), if Singh decides to pursue this to the European Court of Human Rights, the case could drag on another three years.

Blue Wode · Jul 31, 2009

AndyD said:
A LOCKED PDF AGAIN??!!!!

Not only that, but the BCA has decided to hide the statement three clicks away from its index page. Start at "View more news by clicking here"...
http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/default.aspx?m=1&mi=1

godless dave · Jul 31, 2009

WTF. I know Justice Eady is corrupt, incompetent, or both, but I would have hoped the appeals judges would have seen the merit in Singh's appeal. Or rather, they would have seen the idiocy of Eady's ruling on the meaning of the article.

Asolepius · Jul 31, 2009

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that the courts are being just a little vindictive? Are judges determined to show that public opinion and good science mean nothing in the face of the law? I love the BCA's use of the term `constructively'. Surely they mean `destructively' as far as Simon is concerned. But they have roundly lost the moral and scientific arguments at every turn so to all of us the law means nothing.

Blue Wode · Jul 31, 2009

Sense About Science responds to the Court of Appeal decision: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/381

volatile · Jul 31, 2009

Blue Wode said:
Sense About Science responds to the Court of Appeal decision: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/381

"his case will be tried on a meaning of a phrase he did not intend and is indefensible."

Given the "plethora", and the deliberate omission of the Olafsdottir paper, perhaps it isn't so indefensible after all...

AndyD · Aug 1, 2009

COSMOS, yesterday, published an article about the Singh affair. This follows the reprinting of the libel-friendly "original" article, earlier this week.

COSMOS leads media freedom campain: (Simon Singh, BCA, chiropractic, colic, libel)

*If anyone has a contact address for them, please tell them they've written "complimentary" where they mean "complementary". Alternative therapy is rarely free.

BillyJoe · Aug 1, 2009

AndyD said:
*If anyone has a contact address for them, please tell them they've written "complimentary" where they mean "complementary".

They have already altered the spelling to "complementary".

Blue Wode · Aug 1, 2009

volatile said:
"his case will be tried on a meaning of a phrase he did not intend and is indefensible."

Given the "plethora", and the deliberate omission of the Olafsdottir paper, perhaps it isn't so indefensible after all...

Yes, it's worth remembering that Ernst picked up on that in his BMJ piece:

Although the content of the British Chiropractic Association’s list is important, its omissions are perhaps even more so. At least three relevant randomised controlled trials and two systematic reviews are missing from it.24 25 26 27 28 Arguably, these are the most rigorous papers in this area, but they fail to show that chiropractic is effective. The omissions are all the more curious as the association apparently knew of these articles.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul08_4/b2766

Jack of Kent takes a look at the options now available to Simon Singh here:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/08/simons-choice.html

Blue Wode · Aug 2, 2009

An open letter to Simon Singh (on his options) at Heresay Corner blog, followed by a comment from Jack of Kent:
http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/08/open-letter-to-simon-singh.html

Blue Wode · Aug 3, 2009

Lifted from Simon Singh's latest newsletter (not yet available online):

Newsletter 36
Application to Appeal Rejected
3 August, 2009
http://www.simonsingh.net

1. Application to Appeal Rejected

For everyone following my libel case, the bad news is that my application to appeal seems to have been rejected. I say “seems” because I have not yet seen the official ruling as the letter is still in the post. However, there seems to have been a leak and my options are already being discussed by various bloggers. As usual, Jack of Kent has provided a clear summary of the situation:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/07/simon-singh-loses-first-attempt-at.html
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/08/simons-choice.html

The Court of Appeal’s refusal is obviously disappointing, but I remain in good spirits. I will not be making a decision about my response until I have seen the official letter and the details of the refusal, and I will also need to time to discuss the situation with friends, colleagues, supporters and family. In the meantime, while my particular libel case is ongoing, it continues to raise a whole series of arguably more important issues, particularly the appalling state of English libel laws. I am pleased that the Culture Secretary has agreed to meet with signatories of the Keep Libel Laws out of Science campaign statement to hear how the laws affect science writers. We are also pursuing a meeting at the Ministry of Justice and with front benchers in other departments to lobby for a change in the law.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/

Also, Ben Goldacre’s recent and excellent article in the Guardian (“An intrepid, ragged band of bloggers”) documents various activities that will interest those following my case.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...9/simon-singh-science-chiropractic-litigation

British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Mostly harmless

Scholar

Scholar

Muse

Gentleman of leisure

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Scholar and a Gentleman

Muse

Graduate Poster

Great Dalmuti

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Scholar and a Gentleman

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Share this page

ISF - Join now!