British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[steenkh]

Now here's something that nobody seems to be able to answer:

How would a patient know what camp his or her chiropractor fell into, and, perhaps more importantly, how many patients would know enough about chiropractic to ask in the first place?

That is indeed an important question. I had been going to a chiropractor for a long time when I was made aware of the woo-woo components of the treatment through this forum. I asked my chiropractor about it, and that is when I heard that he thought that nobody in Denmark believed in subluxations. He also told me that the Danish chiropractors had considered changing their name in order to distance themselves from those who were basing their treatment on nonsense. However, they had decided against it because in Denmark the brand 'chiropractor' is very strong, and they did not want to lose customers by the move.

I think it is safe to say that no ordinary patient is aware that their chiropractor could have an education in woo. Here, everybody think that chiropractic is just manipulations, and no nonsense. The chiros will of course not advertise their position, so the crucial elements of deciding to visit one chiropractor over another will never be asked.

 

[JJM]

Well, I believe I have made my point, but found no support for it here.

I am perhaps most surprised that people here insist in fighting the same battles that chiropractors apparently fight themselves, regarding who are real chiropractors, and who are not.

I acknowledge that chiros are mainly woo, though not necessarily in Denmark, and I will continue criticizing the practice in Denmark for what is documented as being less efficient, and more dangerous.

I am not disputing who is a chiro, they are licensed as such. What is in doubt is what they actually do- they are practically unregulated. Why do you think Danish chiro is not woo?

This is a diversion from the Singh case. Perhaps we can continue on an existing thread about chiro http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155947

 

[BillyJoe]

"On 18 September 1895 Daniel Palmer, a "magnetic healer" practising in the American Midwest, manipulated the spine of Harvey Lillard, a janitor who had been partially deaf since feeling "something give in his back". The manipulation apparently cured Lillard of his deafness. Palmer's second patient suffered from heart disease, and again spinal manipulation is said to have effected a cure."

The first irony is that there are no connections between spinal nerves and either the ear or heart.
The second irony is that chiropractic is not used for either of these conditions today.

 

[BillyJoe]

This is a diversion from the Singh case. Perhaps we can continue on an existing thread about chiro

I see you are still trying to get your thread going.

 

[laca]

I am not disputing who is a chiro, they are licensed as such. What is in doubt is what they actually do- they are practically unregulated. Why do you think Danish chiro is not woo?

This is a diversion from the Singh case. Perhaps we can continue on an existing thread about chiro http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155947

Isn't that kind of a contradiction? (bolding mine)

 

[Blue Wode]

Isn't that kind of a contradiction? (bolding mine)

Not really. At least not in the UK:

“Since 1994 chiropractic has been regulated by statute in the UK. Despite this air of respectability, a range of important problems continue to bedevil this profession. Professional organizations of chiropractic and their members make numerous claims which are not supported by sound evidence. Many chiropractors adhere to concepts which fly in the face of science and most seem to regularly violate important principles of ethical behaviour. The advice chiropractors give to their clients is often dangerously misleading. If chiropractic in the UK is to grow into an established health care profession, the General Chiropractic Council and its members should comply with the accepted standards of today's health care.”

UK Chiropractic: Regulated but unruly
http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/3/186

 

[laca]

Not really. At least not in the UK:

I don't mean licensed by some private organization. Is chiropractic licensed by the state in the UK? Otherwise, it's not much different than having a licence to practice the game of monopoly from the local monopoly club.

 

[JJM]

I see you are still trying to get your thread going.

No, I am trying to keep this thread uncluttered, including by me.

I don't mean licensed by some private organization. Is chiropractic licensed by the state in the UK? Otherwise, it's not much different than having a licence to practice the game of monopoly from the local monopoly club.

The countries allow the chiros to regulate themselves, which is like leaving the lunatics in charge of the asylum. So, they have state-granted licenses yet they are essentially unregulated.

 

[BillyJoe]

I see you are still trying to get your thread going.

No, I am trying to keep this thread uncluttered, including by me.

Aw, come on, there was a great big smily there and all.

 

[Cuddles]

This thread is intended to focus on the legal case between the BCA and Simon Singh. Please take general discussion of chiropractic to a more appropriate thread, such as this one.

Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Mojo]

Article in this week's Solicitors Journal: The Killing Effect.

When the risk of being sued dangerously discourages doctors from taking part in medical debate and prevents important research from being carried out, it is time to change libel laws, argues Mark Lewis

Lewis is Dr Peter Wilmshurst's solicitor, BTW.

An interesting comment on Eady's claim that there is no problem with libel tourism as well.

The article is currently available as part of the current issue of the journal.

 

[BillyJoe]

Here's comedian Alexei Sayle's serious take on libel reform:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/11/libel-law-london-justice-eady

(I can't seem to find any details of his own libel case though so he may be joking! )

 

[BillyJoe]

Hmmm, maybe he was, it's not even mentioned in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexi_Sayle

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Here's comedian Alexei Sayle's serious take on libel reform:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/11/libel-law-london-justice-eady

(I can't seem to find any details of his own libel case though so he may be joking! )

According to The Times:

Sayle said the libel writ was issued after he wrote a graphic novel called Geoffrey the Tube Train. Someone who worked with Sayle in the comedy business claimed one of the characters resembled him and his reputation had been sullied.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6954621.ece

He certainly wrote that book, so I think he was being serious.

There are a fair few comedians on board with the campaign which is always good, publicitywise.

 

[Mojo]

Here's comedian Alexei Sayle's serious take on libel reform:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/11/libel-law-london-justice-eady

(I can't seem to find any details of his own libel case though so he may be joking! )

That's quoted in the Solicitors Journal article:

The comedian Alexi Sayle said of his successful defence of a libel claim: “It would have been cheaper to stab the ****er – I’d have just got an ASBO stopping me going into parts of Croydon.”

I've added a couple of extra *s.

ETA - The Alexi Sayle Guardian article says "bloke", so SJ must have been quoting him from elsewhere.

 

[BillyJoe]

Sayle said the libel writ was issued after he wrote a graphic novel called Geoffrey the Tube Train. Someone who worked with Sayle in the comedy business claimed one of the characters resembled him and his reputation had been sullied.

How he could possibly win? If the character resembled him enough for him to pick that it was him, how could it have sullied his reputation?

...wait....English libel laws

 

[Professor Yaffle]

How he could possibly win? If the character resembled him enough for him to pick that it was him, how could it have sullied his reputation?

...wait....English libel laws

Maybe it was similar to the situation Peter Kay found himself over one of his characters - a fire safety officer called Keith Lard:

A real-life fire safety officer, Mr. Keith Laird, complained to Channel 4 about the character of Keith Lard, claiming the character damaged his reputation and personal integrity (in particular Keith Lard's interest in bestiality).
Mr. Laird possessed some similarities to the character of Keith Lard, working for Bolton Council as a fire safety officer and even resembling the character in appearance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Lard#Controversy

 

[Mojo]

There was also the case of Blennerhassett v. Novelty Sales Services Ltd (1933).

Novelty Sales put out an advertisement for yo-yos featuring a fictional member of the Stock Exchange called Mr Blennerhassett who became obsessed with yo-yos. It turned out that there was a real member of the Stock Exchange called Blennerhassett, and people took the piss out of him as a result of the advert. He sued and lost.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...9YQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KZMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4871,1907732

 

[BillyJoe]

I suppose if these cases succeeded we would soon be reading novels about characters with names such as Iris M. Belnoone.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I suppose if these cases succeeded we would soon be reading novels about characters with names such as Iris M. Belnoone.

Or unlikely ones like "Simon Singh" .