British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Blue Wode said:
Registration to Pulse is free and anyone can leave a response in the comments section.
Click to expand...


You will also be able to comment on Edzard Ernst's blog there, which currently tends to be overrun with homoeopaths and chiropractors.

steenkh said:
Richard Brown, in his statement, also tries to make it look as if they only use spinal manipulation for back pains.
Click to expand...


This post on Ernst's blog criticises chiropractors for claiming that they can treat asthma, colic etc., and is followed in the comments by three chiropractors claiming that the majority of chiropractors only treat back conditions. Classic "no true Scotsman".
 
Richard Brown said:
The case has sparked a vicious backlash from Singh’s supporters who, predictably, have called for reform of the English libel law. Claiming that the BCA has sought to ‘stifle scientific endeavour’, pro-Singh professional and lay scientists have mounted a nationwide campaign of intimidation against chiropractors and via widespread blogging have encouraged a ‘blitzkrieg’ against the BCA.
Click to expand...


Godwin.
 
volatile said:
Zeno's letter has had a really, really profound effect, and the chiropractors are actually terrified: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/chiropractors-told-to-take-down-their.html
Click to expand...

The first comment makes a very good point:

It's not quite a smoking gun, but the phrase "any claims for treatment that cannot be substantiated with chiropractic research" followed by "whiplash, colic or other childhood problems" rather suggests that they're *aware* that there is no evidence for efficacy for the use of chiro to treat those conditions.

It puts Eady's ruling in an interesting light.
Click to expand...
 
Is that the end of the libel case? I mean here is an admission that certain things that Chiropractors have been advertising is not supported by evidence and they know it. Does that mean the judge's definition of bogus?
 
Originally Posted by [B said:
Richard Brown[/b] ]
The case has sparked a vicious backlash from Singh’s supporters who, predictably, have called for reform of the English libel law. Claiming that the BCA has sought to ‘stifle scientific endeavour’, pro-Singh professional and lay scientists have mounted a nationwide campaign of intimidation against chiropractors and via widespread blogging have encouraged a ‘blitzkrieg’ against the BCA.
Click to expand...

Yay! Go us! Panzers, vorwarts!

Seriously, I wonder who (if anyone) predicted anything of the sort. It's a side issue, but it surely needs change. I'd think anyone can appreciate that, whatever sort of medicine he prefers.
 
Last edited:
rjh01 said:
Is that the end of the libel case? I mean here is an admission that certain things that Chiropractors have been advertising is not supported by evidence and they know it. Does that mean the judge's definition of bogus?
Click to expand...

That's not from the BCA, sadly. It's a different organisation.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
I forget - did Singh actually mention the BCA - or just that chiropracters (in general) happily promote bogus treatments?
Click to expand...

Oooh. Well. Chiropractors in general, but it's the BCA who are defending their reputation. The actions of another body wouldn't come into it, would they?
 
More coverage on the latest developments:

Chiropractors in Mass Website Withdrawal
http://www.layscience.net/node/593

McTimoney Chiropractic Assocition cut and run
http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/mctimoney-chiropractic/

Will this bring more monkeys on my back?
http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.com/2009/06/before-every-action-ask-yourself-will.html

Don't panic! Mr Mainwaring!
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/dont-panic-mr-mainwaring.html


Also, a new, critical post on chiro for children here:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/how-british-chiropractic-association.html
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
This post on Ernst's blog criticises chiropractors for claiming that they can treat asthma, colic etc., and is followed in the comments by three chiropractors claiming that the majority of chiropractors only treat back conditions. Classic "no true Scotsman".
Click to expand...

That is not a no true scotsman, that is simply lying. It is claiming that a majority of chiropractors will not do X, not that people who do X are not true chiropractors.
 
rjh01 said:
Is that the end of the libel case? I mean here is an admission that certain things that Chiropractors have been advertising is not supported by evidence and they know it. Does that mean the judge's definition of bogus?
Click to expand...

I don't think so.
 
This is priceless.
I feel sorry for any poor person who just wanders into a chiropractor's office today and asks if his kid could come in to be treated for whiplash. He'll probably wake up on a brig bound for the Carolinas.

Must admit I feel a bit of sympathy for British chiropractors who are , from what I've learned, a far more rational lot than their cousins across the pond.

It's all a tad reminiscent of the Westminster expenses scandal. There IS a NWO - it appears to be us. This is a bit worrying...
 
I stand in awe. I am literally speechless.

Soapy Sam, I take your point, but consider - who started this? The MCA may not have been the outfit who decided to sue Simon, but I don't really think that's the issue. If British chiropractors, as a body, are going to play hardball, then they shouldn't be surprised if the First XV show up for the game.

Rolfe.
 
Blue Wode said:
More coverage on the latest developments:

Chiropractors in Mass Website Withdrawal
http://www.layscience.net/node/593

McTimoney Chiropractic Assocition cut and run
http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/mctimoney-chiropractic/

Will this bring more monkeys on my back?
http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.com/2009/06/before-every-action-ask-yourself-will.html

Don't panic! Mr Mainwaring!
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/dont-panic-mr-mainwaring.html


Also, a new, critical post on chiro for children here:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/how-british-chiropractic-association.html
Click to expand...


"Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"
 
Professor Yaffle picked up on that first comment, and I think she has highlighted something very important. This letter (supposed to be confidential and now all over the web, what else did they expect) pretty much states that this group of chiropractors at least are very well aware that there is no credible evidence for these particular claims.

If I was Simon's legal team, I'd have a bit more of a spring in my step right now.

Rolfe.
 
rjh01 said:
Is that the end of the libel case? I mean here is an admission that certain things that Chiropractors have been advertising is not supported by evidence and they know it. Does that mean the judge's definition of bogus?
Click to expand...


No, because it isn't from the BCA.
 
Soapy Sam said:
This is priceless.
I feel sorry for any poor person who just wanders into a chiropractor's office today and asks if his kid could come in to be treated for whiplash. He'll probably wake up on a brig bound for the Carolinas.

Must admit I feel a bit of sympathy for British chiropractors who are , from what I've learned, a far more rational lot than their cousins across the pond.

It's all a tad reminiscent of the Westminster expenses scandal. There IS a NWO - it appears to be us. This is a bit worrying...
Click to expand...
Priceless indeed - we seem to be witnessing a new variation of the Streisand effectWP, perhaps we should call it the Singh Effect.

Oh - and I, for one, welcome our new sceptical overlords.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
I forget - did Singh actually mention the BCA - or just that chiropracters (in general) happily promote bogus treatments?
Click to expand...
volatile said:
Chiropractors in general, but it's the BCA who are defending their reputation.
Click to expand...


In fact he speciifically mentions the BCA:

The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.
Click to expand...
 
BillyJoe said:
In fact he speciifically mentions the BCA:
Click to expand...

and the point is that you can libel a person, or a legal entity that has the rights of a person, but you can't libel a class of people without that degree of specificity.

Which is why the RCVS really did try to define a whole new set of rules for itself when it went after us for allegedly risking bringing the profession into disrepute for failing to distance ourselves (note that, "failing to distance" not actually making any positive statements) from comments about homeopaths in a situation where it was legally impossible that we could have committed libel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom