British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

With respect to the above- here's a post by CommandLine Gamer relating to the libel situation, which (it seems to me), might be advantageously copied here.


commandlinegamer said:
Case thrown out for being abuse of process and/or out of time:

http://twitter.com/jackofkent

A good summary of the case is on Jack of Kent's blog:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/05/dave-osler-libel-decision-due-tomorrow.html

Seems significant given that Judge Eady has long been seen (though I think this is being overly simplistic) as being sympathetic to 'libel tourism'.

Anyway, good result, and hopefully libel reform will not now be too far off.
Click to expand...
 
As anyone who follows Private Eye will know, Eady is a nutter in many many ways not just libel tourism.
 
Simon Singh said:
"Last month, after two years of legal wrangling, the BCA backed down and withdrew its libel action. It now has to foot its own legal bill and my legal costs, which I estimate will come to £300,000 in total."
Click to expand...

£300,000. Now we know Simon was getting much of his legal help pro bono, a fact for which the BCA should be jolly glad, as it means, ironocally, they are receiving financial aid from their opponents in the case. He has estimated his costs as of the order of £100,000, so the BCA's seem to be (very roughly) twice that.
Do organisations carry legal insurance I wonder?
Perhaps JoK et al should slap him with a big bill?
 
Official: Chiropractic built on sand
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=20&storycode=4126259&c=1

(Free registration)

The existence of spinal subluxations has never been established. Thus chiropractic was built on sand.

The new position [GCC's guidance on the chiropractic 'subluxation'] seems to more or less admit that and is an attempt to render chiropractic evidence-based. It has to be seen, I think, as the direct consequence of the British Chiropractic Association losing their libel suit against Simon Singh. The case prompted several sceptics to pursue UK chiropractors for making what they considered unsubstantiated claims. Thus the GCC have around 600 complaints to deal with - which are predicted to be very costly.

As I have stressed before, all of this has huge relevance for the future of CAM in the UK and probably elsewhere as well: the times where any CAM practitioner could make any bogus claim and hope to get away with it seem to be over!
Click to expand...
 
A must read:

GCC under pressure over subluxations..
http://skepticbarista.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/gcc-subluxation-pressure/

So what we have is a definition of what a subluxation is (functional derangement) combined with research reviews & GCC statements that there is no evidence to support such claims. We also have confirmation from the training establishments that they do not support or teach links between the subluxation and health concerns.

Clearly something has prompted the GCC to issue a revised guidance. Are the GCC in possession of updated research confirming a link, if so then this is truly a breakthrough and should be published ……. Or is there another reason for the U-Turn?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Blue Wode said:
A must read:

GCC under pressure over subluxations..
http://skepticbarista.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/gcc-subluxation-pressure/
Click to expand...


At the meeting the AUKC presented what they describe as ‘a substantial 120 page dossier entitled The Vertebral Subluxation Complex – The History, Science, Evolution and Current Quantum Thinking on a Chiropractic Tenet’. (this document does not appear to be publically available via the internet)
Click to expand...


"Quantum Thinking"? Does that mean the smallest possible amount of thinking?
 
Mojo said:
"Quantum Thinking"? Does that mean the smallest possible amount of thinking?
Click to expand...
I think it means that the GCC can hold two potential positions simultaneously, only settling on one after their lawyers have tested them.
 
Surely it just refers to their Heisenbergian stance - it is quite impossible for them to say with any certainty what their position is at any given moment.
 
....and even if you did happen to know their position, you could not predict the speed with which they would change it.
 
I'm on the Sense about Science mailing list. I just had the following email.
I expect others here will have seen it, but I'm sure nobody will object if I reproduce it here.





Dear Friends
We are emailing as victims of England’s libel laws to ask for your help at a crucial time for libel reform.
The Government is writing a new defamation bill and is due to publish it in the New Year. This will be the first time the libel laws have been substantively reviewed in a century. The libel reform campaign is being led by small organisations and it has been because of your wider support that we have got to this exciting stage. Your petition signatures have helped draw attention to the problem, your emails to politicians have helped raise awareness in Parliament, your donations have allowed us to host meetings and produce campaign material, your blogs and tweets have helped spread our message and your personal accounts of encounters with the libel laws have helped us build the case for libel reform.
We have to take this unique opportunity now to ensure that the reforms in the Government’s bill address the problems we have had to face and that the campaign has been hearing about from scientists, bloggers, journalists, human rights activists, biographers, novelists and many others. The libel reform campaign is exploring the potential of alternative dispute resolution, talking to bloggers about their experiences, surveying medical and science editors on the hidden costs of the libel laws and is running events at the three main party conferences to try to ensure the Government fulfils its pledges.
Can you donate £10 towards the costs of these at www.justgiving.com/libelreform? If 1,000 people can help us at this crucial stage, it will help engineer a truly effective libel reform bill, as opposed to one that might be watered down by vested interests. We know how unfair and damaging the laws are and we need your help to ensure no other scientist, writer, blogger or doctor goes through what we did.
(If you are a UK tax payer, please tick the Gift Aid box so the campaign can make the most of your donation. Thanks.)
Best
Ben Goldacre (Matthias Rath v Goldacre/Guardian)
Simon Singh (BCA v Singh)
Peter Wilmshurst (NMT v Wilmshurst) - ongoing
See details of the Libel Reform Campaign events at the 2010 Party Conferences here: http://www.libelreform.org/news/469-libel-laws-stifle-debate-will-the-coalition-stop-the-chill


ETA- Sense about Science is a pretty interesting organisation and worth supporting (IMO). Anyone interested might consider setting up a monthly contribution to them. Details on their website. http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/
Apart from being a supporter, I have no affiliation with them , financial or otherwise. Look them up and see what you think.
 
Last edited:
Addendum to the above.
I just looked at the donations page.
The email asked for 1000 donations of £10.
Since 20 September, they have received approximately 1500 donations (rough guestimate based on the number of pages). Average donation is , I think, nearer 15 than 10, giving about £22000.

This seems to suggest a lot of people out there are still taking this issue rather seriously.
As we should.

One issue I wonder about. The law is frequently referred to as "English Libel Law".
Does the law in this case differ between England & Wales and Scotland or Northern Ireland?
 
I believe so. I think in this particular instance the difference is actually quite substantial.

Rolfe.
 
huw-l said:
In UK usage also. Person PhD is usually referred to as Dr Person.

Dr Person PhD, is either a Medical Doctor with a PhD or a pretentious idiot.
Click to expand...

Offtopic:

I (a non-medical PhD) have "Dr Volatile PhD" on my bankcards, because the people who work at NatWest are stupid. When I filled in the "Change of Details" card and the woman at the desk asked me if I was a medical doctor - and I told her, "No, I have a PhD in art history", she wrote "(PhD)" after my name on the form.

I am a pretentious idiot (I'll happily admit to that), but the declaration of that fact to the world is entirely not my fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom