British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Yeah, but I just don't understand how he cannot know he's a ******** artist.



JOK, on the other hand, he is definitely a lawyer...
This is more incorrect than the statement in the abstract, and it is wrong in that:
- there has not been an award of substantial damages;
- there has not been an award of any damages;
- there has not been the award of any legal remedy;
- there has not been a judgment of the court...
- there has not even been a full trial of the case...
- a full trial has not even been listed...
- the case is still at the preliminary stage...
- [the case] is adjourned pending the outcome of Simon Singh's appeal of the ruling on meaning.
Click to expand...
Okay, I've exaggerated him just a little bit :D
 
Last edited:
When a subluxation is not subluxation

From the dictionaries:

sub⋅lux⋅a⋅tion

- a partial dislocation, as of a joint; sprain.
- incomplete or partial dislocation of a bone in a joint.
- partial dislocation as of one of the bones in a joint
- incomplete or partial dislocation, as of a bone in a joint.

Hmmm, that's pretty definite!


From Ierano's FAQs

2. What is subluxation?
Subluxation in the chiropractic sense is a spinal focus of manifestation of stress. In simplistic terms: its a painful or locked-up area of the spine. But you can find many areas of the spine that are painful. The chiropractor sytematically finds the original points of focus for correction via the chiropractic adjustment. Usually areas of compensation do not solve the problem long term. Anybody can crack a joint or treat pain areas. Chiropractors focus on areas clinically proven to get closer to the cause. These are subluxated vertebrae.
Click to expand...
Here are his definitions:

1) Subluxation is "a spinal focus of manifestation of stress".
2) Subluxation is "a painful or locked-up area of the spine".
3) These are subluxated vertebrae: not any old "painful or locked-up area of the spine", because most are just "areas of compensation" and anybody "crack or treat" them. Chiropractors, on the other hand, focus on the original "painful locked up areas of the spine" and perform their "adjustment" on them.

He knows there are no actual subluxations, but he just can't bring himself to give up on the word that has been central to chiropractic since its invention, so he just redefines it in a weasely woollyTM sort of way.
 
...oops we're off topic again :o


But, while we're at it:

Look at the link below for conditions that he has treated with chiropractic whilst being careful to say
- that chiropractic is not a cure for these conditions.
- that he is not promoting chiropractic for these conditions but they are conditions that patients present to him with.
- that patients with similar conditions may not respond
- that these case histories indicate that more research is needed into chiropractic.

http://www.chiropracticierano.com.au/case/study.html
(there are about 25 conditions not related to back pain!)
 
Last edited:
I covered Dr. Milgrom's excellent article on my blog too. If anyone wants a copy of the full article just drop me a PM. I think the other significant point to note as spotted by Dr. Aust is that Milgrom is on the editorial board for the journal his article was published in!
 
Mojo said:
Lionel Milgrom comments:

CAM, Free Speech, and the British Legal System: Overstepping the Mark?




"Overstepping the mark" indeed.

This isn't the first time that Milgrom has overstepped the mark regaridng Eady's preliminary ruling: Here he is in the BMJ's rapid responses claiming that "the judge agreed [Singh's article] was libellous".

Analysis of Milgrom's article from Jack of Kent, Gimpy and Dr Aust.
Click to expand...


Oh boy, I've just spotted this accompanying editorial: Disinformation on Both Sides of the Atlantic: A Patient's View:
Two articles in this issue deal with disinformation being spread about alternative and complementary medicine in the United Kingdom. These are: Milgrom's CAM, Free Speech, and the British Legal System: Overstepping the Mark? (pp. 1135-1138) and ...
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
That's a pretty thorough conflating of two completely different issues: trying to provide effective healthcare for all Americans and trying to ensure ineffective healthcare is allowed to masquerade as real medicine.
Click to expand...


There's also a touch of conspiracy theory about TEH CODEX "forc[ing] CAM product manufacturers to weaken the doses of CAM preparations so much that they would be rendered ineffective". I suppose this means we'll see people overdosing on homoeopathy.

There's an easy way around this, of course - just register them as medicines.

Off-topic again, aren't we?
 
A suggestion. Write to the editor, complaining about the extremely poor standard of scholarship of Milgrom's article, copying to the publisher. Ask why peer review did not even check the simplest of facts. The more the merrier......
 
Asolepius said:
A suggestion. Write to the editor, complaining about the extremely poor standard of scholarship of Milgrom's article, copying to the publisher. Ask why peer review did not even check the simplest of facts. The more the merrier......
Click to expand...


According to this comment on Jack of Kent's blog, the publishers have already responded to a similar comment:
In answer to your e-mail comment sent via our website, our editor says:

We have been given to understand that Dr. Singh was given leave to appeal the decisions against him on 14th October 2009, after this issue of The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine had gone to press, at which time, we understand that everything in Dr. Milgrom's article was factually correct. We will be adding a footnote to the article in the online Journal to alert the readership about the appeal.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom