British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Lothian said:
The article claimed that there was an award of substantial damages yet they "understand that everything in the article was factually correct at the time". They really are without a clue.
Click to expand...


Journal of Alternative and Complementary Reality?
 
The 'substantial damages' bit is I think due to the fact that the judge ordered Simon to cover the legal expenses of the BCA up to the preliminary hearing unless he chose to go to trial. The cost he would have been expected to cover at the time was somewhere in the region of £20,000-30,000 so I think this is what all the talk of 'substantial damages' refers to. It's a mistake but it is understandable that someone could make such a mistake the unbelievable bit is how they could still have missed the fact that no decision was handed down given the amount of coverage the case is still receiving. One look at Jack of Kent's blog would have clarified the issue for Milgrom but I suspect he has never bothered to read such sources.
 
CKava said:
The 'substantial damages' bit is I think due to the fact that the judge ordered Simon to cover the legal expenses of the BCA up to the preliminary hearing unless he chose to go to trial. The cost he would have been expected to cover at the time was somewhere in the region of £20,000-30,000 so I think this is what all the talk of 'substantial damages' refers to. It's a mistake but it is understandable that someone could make such a mistake the unbelievable bit is how they could still have missed the fact that no decision was handed down given the amount of coverage the case is still receiving. One look at Jack of Kent's blog would have clarified the issue for Milgrom but I suspect he has never bothered to read such sources.
Click to expand...


The judge's ruling in the preliminary hearing can be found on Jack of Kent's blog: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-official-ruling.html

There doesn't appear to be any mention of costs.

ETA: I see that the BCA's statement issued after the hearing says that Singh was ordered to pay the BCA's costs (I think this would be normal?). It also said Eady held that "what Dr Singh had published was defamatory of the BCA in exactly the way the BCA had claimed". In fact he ruled on the meaning of the words complained of - whether it is in fact defamatory would be determined at the actual trial. Perhaps this statement is what Milgrom was relying on as a source.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Perhaps this statement is what Milgrom was relying on as a source.
Click to expand...

If Milgrom chooses to rely on statements made by a chiropractor, or a chiropractic organisation, he has only himself to blame.
(Oops, is that defamatory?)

In any case, "costs" are not "damages", and nowhere does it use the word "substantial".

Perhaps it's just the result of his habit of saying just what he wants to say regardless of whether or not it is the truth.
 
The leave to appeal hearing is covered by 'Ratbiter' in this week's Private Eye (No. 1248, p. 10):
Another rebuff for Mr Justice Eady, this time for his refereeing of the British Chiropractic Association's battle to punish science writer Simon Singh.

Lord Justice Laws ruled that Singh could go to the appeal court to question Eady's interpretation of the facts of the case.

...

Lord Justice Laws was contemptuous. He said Eady's judgment was "legally erroneous" and Singh had every right to go to the appeal court and say his remarks were fair comment based on the evidence. Time to break open the champagne? Not yet. Even if Singh beats off the chiropractors he will still have to find tens of thousands of pounds. In English libel law, defendants lose even when they win.
Click to expand...


the column goes on to mention the Wilmshurst case, and the case involving the International Journal of Speech Language and the Law and lie detectors.

It also mentions that when a science correspondent on the Melbourne Age interviewed Singh about homeopathy, the newspaper's lawyers "diligently removed some significant directly and indirectly quoted comments about homeopathy from the story". The journalist thought about publishing the full version on his blog, but decided he coudn't take the risk of being sued either in Australia or London. He is quoted as saying that he is left with a feeling that he has short-changed his readers.

Ratbiter's column concludes:
In the short-changing of readers, and the assault on scientific writing and journalism, big pharma and alternative medicine for once seem strangely united.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
The judge's ruling in the preliminary hearing can be found on Jack of Kent's blog.

There doesn't appear to be any mention of costs.

ETA: I see that the BCA statement issued after the hearing says that Singh was ordered to pay the BCA's costs (I think this would be normal?). It also said Eady held that "what Dr Singh had published was defamatory of the BCA in exactly the way the BCA had claimed". In fact he ruled on the meaning of the words complained of - whether it is in fact defamatory would be determined at the actual trial. Perhaps this statement is what Milgrom was relying on as a source.
Click to expand...

Can't recall where I saw or heard the figure from. I think it was a BCA members update or something. It may have been mentioned at the actual preliminary hearing as I was in the courtroom during that but I can't rightly remember now. Anyway, it is still clear that no substantial damages have been awarded regardless of who was saying what.
 
Here's a report claiming that Singh had been "found guilty of libel", from Dynamic Chiropractic, "the chiropractic news source": BCA Victorious in Libel Case

The British courts have refused Simon Singh's request to appeal the May court decision that found him guilty of libel for comments made about the British Chiropractic Association and chiropractic care in a 2008 article in the Guardian newspaper.
Click to expand...


It goes on to mention the award of costs, but no mention of damages, substantial or otherwise.
 
Mojo said:
Here's a report claiming that Singh had been "found guilty of libel", from Dynamic Chiropractic, "the chiropractic news source": BCA Victorious in Libel Case




It goes on to mention the award of costs, but no mention of damages, substantial or otherwise.
Click to expand...

It sounds as though, based on your earlier post, that the folks at DC are in error.

Hey, couldn't Simon Singh sue for defamation for this?
 
fls said:
So they are happily promoting bogus information?

Did we expect something different?

Linda
Click to expand...

You know, actually, I was at least hoping they'd print something that resembled fact, particularly as this case has proceeded. I honestly thought they'd get the facts regarding court activity correct.

Seems they can't even manage that one.
 
Good blog post at Science Based Medicine today on the BCA/Simon Singh case, and the complaint received by Australian Skeptics from chiropractor, Joseph Ierano, regarding the skeptics' re-posting of “Beware the Spinal Trap”:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2385

On a related matter, still no clarification from the UK General Chiropractic Council on the essential differences between scientific manual therapy and chiropractic philosophy (vitalism/innate intelligence/subluxations):
http://www.spinewizards.org.uk/
 
A chiropractor takes on the seasonal flu vaccine:

http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=54277

This article is not intended to decide for parents whether to vaccinate or not to vaccinate for the flu, but rather to provide information so they can decide for themselves.
Click to expand...
Who are they kidding?
Here is their definition of the flu - which is significant for what they DO NOT say about seasonal flu:
What Is the Flu?
Influenza is a contagious respiratory illness caused by influenza viruses. The most common symptoms are fever, headache, fatigue, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, and body aches, as well as diarrhea and vomiting. The flu can cause complications such as pneumonia or dehydration and may aggravate existing conditions like asthma and heart disease. It is spread from person to person in respiratory droplets when people who are infected cough or sneeze.
Click to expand...
No mention of the THREE THOUSAND DEATHS PER YEAR due to seasonal flu in the USA alone.



Read that original quote again and compare that with the tone of the quotes that follow:
This article is not intended to decide for parents whether to vaccinate or not to vaccinate for the flu, but rather to provide information so they can decide for themselves.
Click to expand...
Followed by:
What the CDC doesn't tell you is that the other ingredients in the flu shot include, but are not limited to the following:
  • Ethylene glycol - antifreeze
  • Phenol (also known as carbolic acid) - a disinfectant and a dye
  • Formaldehyde - a known carcinogen (cancer-causing agent)
  • Aluminum - associated with Alzheimer's disease and seizures, and has produced cancer in laboratory mice, but is still being used as an additive to promote antibody response
  • Thimerosal - a mercury disinfectant and preservative that can result in brain injury and autoimmune disease
  • Neomycin and Streptomycin - used as antibiotics and have been known to cause allergic reactions in some people
Click to expand...
there are potential side effects associated with the flu shot. The CDC and other health care organizations would have you overlook them for the supposed benefit of being inoculated against the flu
Click to expand...
An even more serious side effect is Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS). This is a disease in which the body damages its own nerve cells, resulting in muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis. While most people eventually recover, some have permanent nerve damage and 5 percent to 6 percent of those who develop GBS will die. The CDC would remind you that only six of every 1 million people injected with the flu shot will develop GBS.
Click to expand...
But no mention of the larger number who get GBS as as result of getting the flu because they haven't been vaccinated.
The CDC talks about the benefits of being vaccinated, but are those benefits backed up with the facts? The flu vaccine is always changing because the flu strains change from one year to the next. The manufacturers of the vaccine take a shot in the dark and hope they'll hit the right strain each year, but the fact is the flu shot is only 70 percent to 90 percent effective.
Click to expand...
That's right! ONLY 70 -90% effective!



They then quote two individuals.
Dean Eurich is quoted as saying that
Only about 10 percent of winter-time deaths in the United States are attributable to influenza, thus to suggest that the vaccine can reduce 50 percent of deaths from all causes is implausible in our opinion
Click to expand...
This is a meaningless statistic in this context. What we are interested in is what percentage of deaths due to flu are prevented by the flu vaccine. And the link they provide is to a different study by Dean Eurich (about whether flu vaccine prevents deaths in the "off" season) which is, nevertheless, also a meaningless study in this context.
The other person mentioned is Sumit Majumdar who is actually one of the other authors of the same paper. So two becomes one.



They then say
A recent article published inthe Lancet medical journal suggests the flu vaccine is having little or no effect on the number of elderly people developing pneumonia each year...
Click to expand...
Followed immediately by:
...and a recent study led by Michael Jackson ... determined that the risk of contracting the lung disease wasn't reduced by the shot.
Click to expand...
But the recent article published inthe Lancet medical journal and a recent study led by Michael Jackson are one and the same article/study! Again, two becomes one.



And, of course, no one is quoted in support of the vaccine.
So much for "providing information so parents can decide for themselves".
But they do give the CDC credit for the following advice:
1) Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough/sneeze; throw the used tissue away. 2) Wash your hands often with soap and water and as soon as possible after coughing or sneezing. 3) Keep yourself and any babies and children in your care away from people who are coughing or sneezing. 4) Try not to touch your eyes, nose, or mouth.
Click to expand...
...but, don't you know, this is just sensible advice given to you by "your Mom when you were growing up".
 
Last edited:
What the CDC doesn't tell you is that the other ingredients in the flu shot include, but are not limited to the following:

* Ethylene glycol - antifreeze
* Phenol (also known as carbolic acid) - a disinfectant and a dye
* Formaldehyde - a known carcinogen (cancer-causing agent)
* Aluminum - associated with Alzheimer's disease and seizures, and has produced cancer in laboratory mice, but is still being used as an additive to promote antibody response
* Thimerosal - a mercury disinfectant and preservative that can result in brain injury and autoimmune disease
* Neomycin and Streptomycin - used as antibiotics and have been known to cause allergic reactions in some people
Click to expand...


What chiropractors don't tell you is that chiropractic involves...

  • Manipulation with hands. Human hands are responsible for building nuclear weapons.
  • Application of force. Force is responsible for millions of deaths every year in all sorts of major accidents.
  • Moving the spine - spinal movement has been strongly implicated in paralysis and even death in some people.
  • Lying face down. This position has been central to thousands of deaths every year by drowning.
  • Gentle pressure. Application of pressure is a recognised method of torture.
  • Sudden blows to the body. Martial arts uses sudden blows to kill and maim people.
  • Appointments - like tax cheats have to make with the tax office.
  • Repeat visits - similar to what you might expect with a prostitute or drug dealer.
  • Twisting limbs. The world's jails are overflowing with people who twisted other people's limbs. Officially it's called assault.
  • Someone using the title "Doctor" just like those people who create biological weapons in secret laboratories.


Wow! It's worse than I ever thought. I might have to make up find similar lists for other alt-med.
 
The BCA were awarded the costs of the preliminary hearing (which is the rule in English litigation).

But there was no award of damages, either nominal or substantial.
 
AndyD said:
What chiropractors don't tell you is that chiropractic involves.

.....

Wow! It's worse than I ever thought. I might have to make up find similar lists for other alt-med.
Click to expand...

I'm so copying/translating that to my blog. With due reference, of course.
 
Chiropractors come up against a stone wall in Australia:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/emergency-department-turf-war-20091107-i2sx.html

The chiropractic association chief:
''It's estimated that patients with musculoskeletal conditions require about 250,000 bed days a year in NSW hospitals,''... ''If chiropractic was [an] emergency treatment option we could avoid thousands of patients being admitted''...''We're trying to get chiropractors in a hospital setting to do three years of research''... ''It's a win-win situation.''
Click to expand...



The medical response:

The Orthopaedic Surgeon:
"...chiropractors have no place in hospitals"... ''On the evidence, they don't have a place in emergency rooms'' .... ''The underlying story to all this is that chiropractors want more involvement in mainstream medicine''
Click to expand...
"The bottom line is that the research the chiropractors are asking for has already been done and it has been shown that they don't offer any greater service than paracetamol and early active mobilisation"
Click to expand...
The AMA President:
''There is still very little evidence on which to make any claims about chiropractic treatment''...''Chiropractors do seem to help some people with back pain, but a lot of it is probably just helping the patient feel better while their back gets better anyway''
Click to expand...
"There is no evidence [that chiropractors can help treat medical conditions] … and that's not turf protection, that's common sense and patient safety''
Click to expand...



I wonder how much of an inspiration Simon Singh was on his recent trip to Australia?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom