• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Um. I guess I was assuming that individual practitioners who were members of the MCA had contacted the MCA after the GCC advised them that they were the subject of complaints, and that the MCA worked it out that way.

However, if that's not the case, and it seems as if there hasn't been time for that to have happened, then we really ought to ask, who leaked?

Rolfe.
 
It is clear to me which way this war is going. Those chiropractors who haven't retreated and withdrawn their claims will soon and their actions will remain under the constant eye of the skeptic network until a ceasefire is signed.

What we need to do now is find a way that the remaining skirmish can be settled so each side can get back to what they do best. Simon bringing science to the masses and the BCA representing a group of people who can in some instances bring a very slight improvement to some people with certain lower back complaints.

The can be done by the BCA dropping its libel case and Simon dropping the appeal.

Simon can issue a statement saying. "I apologise for the poor wording of my article. I appreciate it could be read to suggest that the BCA promoted treatments that they knew did not work. That is not the case."

and the BCA Simon can issue a statement saying. "We apologise for the poor wording of our leaflet. We appreciate it could be read to suggest that there was evidence that Chiropractors can help with certain childhood complaints. That is not the case."

There. Simple.
 
Rolfe said:
Um. I guess I was assuming that individual practitioners who were members of the MCA had contacted the MCA after the GCC advised them that they were the subject of complaints, and that the MCA worked it out that way.
Click to expand...


This seems likely. If I was a MCA member notified of a complaint against me, pretty much the first thing I'd do is to contact the MCA to see what support and advice they could provide.

Just as if, for example, I was a BCA member being asked by the ASA for evidence to support my claim that I can treat colic, I'd be straight onto the BCA to ask for the "plethora" of evidence they have to support this claim.

Oh.
 
The complaints campaign began last month - I blogged about it on May 26, so it started before that and it was discussed in absolute openness on three or four blogs.

More than enough time for members to alert the MCA. No need for conspiracy here as far as I can see.

ETA: Ahh, I see you're probably wondering where the "over 500 complaints" figure came from? I guess it's possible the MCA could have asked the GCC if they'd received "any" complaints and been told - but is there any suggestion that's improper? Note that the email refers to a previous email which shows the MCA was obviously well aware of the issue before the omnibus complaint was lodged.
 
Last edited:
Asolepius said:
Even more interesting are the comments...
Click to expand...
There are at least two comments there defending chiropractic (founder: D. D. Palmer 1845-1913) on the basis that it is a "young" profession. As for homoeopathy, how long do they want to come up with some decent evidence?
 
Mojo said:
There are at least two comments there defending chiropractic (founder: D. D. Palmer 1845-1913) on the basis that it is a "young" profession. As for homoeopathy, how long do they want to come up with some decent evidence?
Click to expand...
It is not a "young profession." At the dawn of chiropractic and osteopathy, "medical" treatment was largely quackery (bleeding, scalding, purging etc.). Since then, medicine and US osteopathy has become science-based. Chiropracty has certainly had the time to do the same. However, they are in a cult that cannot abandon their founder's notions (grocer, DD Palmer).
 
One of them has also done the "I know where the evidence is but I'm not telling" manoeuvre:
The evidence that various people keep asking the BCA to 'publish' has already been published and is there for all to see on PubMed etc. Even I can find it.
Click to expand...
 
This may just be a coincidence, but a number of documents seem to have vanished from the General Osteopathic Council's website recently.

For example this page: http://web.archive.org/web/20080116012454/www.osteopathy.org.uk/about_osteo/index.php
Osteopaths treat a variety of common conditions including changes to posture in pregnancy; babies with colic or sleeplessness...
Click to expand...


And this selection of leaflets: http://web.archive.org/web/20080122...org.uk/about_osteo/about_osteo_factsheets.php

For example this one: http://web.archive.org/web/20070206114911/www.osteopathy.org.uk/about_osteo/Babies_Children.pdf

I'm not sure exactly how recently they disappeared, but I'm pretty sure that that last one was still there when I looked at their website in early March.

As I say, this may just be coincidence - they've just revamped their entire website (announced in the April/May 2009 issue of their house journal as "going live as this issue of The Osteopath goes to print") and the disappearance of these may just be collateral to that. They still have a "leaflets" page in their publications section, but it currently just has a singe leaflet (which appears to be from the Health Professions Council) about healthcare regulation, and an announcement that "We are in the process of producing a new range of public information leaflets, which will be available here".
 
rjh01 said:
Would the BCA e-mail have any relevance in the libel case? It is now the BCA who have issued out a warning to conform to advertising standards.


Ref: Scope of medipractic practise by the back door of the General Chiropractic Council
Click to expand...
I think a clever barrister could make something of it, eg:
Now let me get this clear in my mind. You, and you are appearing here to represent the BCA, were well aware all along that non-evidence based claims are not allowed by the GCC. It now becomes clear that a large proportion of the chiropractic profession, including the BCA itself, by removing public claims to be able to treat many conditions including some of those at issue today, agrees that these claims are unreliable. I put it to you that it is not credible that you were not aware of the lack of evidence for these claims, as this was generally acknowledged within the profession as shown by its recent actions when challenged.
Click to expand...
 
The problem is that Simon Singh is appealing the judges interpretation of the sentence "The BCA ... happily promotes bogus treatments". The judges interpretation is that the sentence implies that the BCA knowingly and deliberately promote bogus treatments.

Simon is not supporting that interpretation, he is contesting it.
 
In the comments to Richard Brown's article in New Scientist, one of the many commenters who has attempted to defend chiropractic's claim to treat conditions other than back problems by saying it cured their back problem also posted:
I don't think Chiropractors are under the illusion they can 'cure' diseases and conditions such as asthma...
Click to expand...


If Simon loses the appeal, he can always call this person as a witness.
 
BillyJoe said:
The problem is that Simon Singh is appealing the judges interpretation of the sentence "The BCA ... happily promotes bogus treatments". The judges interpretation is that the sentence implies that the BCA knowingly and deliberately promote bogus treatments.

Simon is not supporting that interpretation, he is contesting it.
Click to expand...
I am looking beyond the appeal. If the appeal fails, then Simon has to prove that the BCA knew the treatments were bogus. At the very least it is now clear that they knew they were unreliable, otherwise why tell members to delete the claims? But what these latest developments mean is that the BCA might just decide their case isn't as solid as they thought. However I am attributing rational thought to them which maybe I should not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom