British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

BenBurch said:
It goes to Mr. Justice Eady for trial, and he just finds for them anyway in spite (literally) of this ruling.
Click to expand...


Would Eady be able to hear the trial (which will be heard by a judge alone, without a jury) after his earlier ruling on it has been overturned, or would it have to be heard by a different judge?
 
I haven't seen anything more from the alt-med bloggers who were announcing (at the time of the Eady ruling) that Simon had lost his libel case and had substantial damages awarded against him. I wonder if they've got a clue, yet?

Rolfe.
 
AndyD said:
Blog post: What would the BCA do?

Jack of Kent's open letter to the BCA

A conversation with Simon Singh
Click to expand...


A few more updates:

Jack of Kent's brief *lay* summary of Court of Appeal Decision
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/04/bca-v-singh-brief-lay-summary-of-court.html

Professor Stephen Curry of Imperial College writes about the nature of evidence and the Court of Appeal Decision:
This is not evidence that a scientist worth their mettle would consider to be of any real value. This is not evidence that I would tolerate in an argument from one of my undergraduates. This is not evidence that a child at primary school learning about science at key stage 1 of the national curriculum would consider to be derived from a "fair test".

The BCA is a professional organisation that represents the interests of chiropractors who claimed to be able to treat non-spinal childhood ailments by manipulating their spines. Those are bold claims given our modern understanding of human physiology. That the BCA is happy to cite the paper by Klougart and colleagues as worthwhile evidence supporting chiropractic treatments tells me they are far less critical, far less scientific, than the public has a right to expect them to be.

More...
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/04/guest-post-stephen-curry-on-evidence.html
Click to expand...


Phil Plait's most recent post on the matter at his Discovery blog:
“The BCA is looking ever-more ridiculous, mean, and venal in this case.”

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/04/07/simon-singh-has-appeal/
Click to expand...


And in addition to the above, the latest message from Simon Singh, published yesterday, can be read here:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/476
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I haven't seen anything more from the alt-med bloggers who were announcing (at the time of the Eady ruling) that Simon had lost his libel case and had substantial damages awarded against him. I wonder if they've got a clue, yet?
Click to expand...


Not just bloggers: at least one of them managed to get an actual article published with a claim that the BCA had "recently won a libel case" against Singh and had been awarded "substantial damages". See: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/legal-scholarship-of-dr-lionel-milgrom.html
 
Ah, I'd forgotten that one! That blog post is a contender for put-down of the century. Except it has to get in line behind shpalman on the same target.

Rolfe.
 
I wonder if dear Lionel is even tangentially aware of the 1st April judgement? It's been on the news quite openly. And if so, will he blush even slightly?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I wonder if dear Lionel is even tangentially aware of the 1st April judgement? It's been on the news quite openly. And if so, will he blush even slightly?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Let me suggest, based on his recent outpourings on homeopathy, that dear Lionel is not even tangentially aware of reality any more, let alone the nuances and consequences of the relevant proceedings in the London law courts.
 
I think if Little Lionel were to interact with the April Fools Judgement, the wave collapse would fry the microtubules in his brain.
 
Singh case importance noticed by the Lancet editors. :D

England's libel laws: silencing scientific debate
...last week, Singh saw this ruling overturned in the Court of Appeal. The appeal judges rightly ruled that “scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation”.

The decision is an important victory for freedom of speech and scientific debate. Still, without substantial reform of England's archaic libel laws, which are being used to silence scientific opinions, cases such as Singh's are likely to continue. Already a British cardiologist is being sued by a heart-device manufacturer after he criticised their handling of clinical trial data. Academics abroad are also affected. A Swedish professor had his review of voice-risk analysis systems, a type of lie detector technology, removed from the website of a peer-reviewed journal by its English publisher after the manufacturer threatened legal action.

England's libel laws stifle scientific discourse, negatively affect scientific careers, and represent a threat to public health. Radical reform is urgently needed. Libel laws should be kept out of science.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom