British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[JJM]

{snip} The following is the exact quote of the passage from Simon Singh's comment piece in the Guardian newspaper on which the BCA based their decision to sue:

{snip} Bogus treatments equate to quack remedies; that is to say they are dishonestly presented to a trusting and, in some respects perhaps, vulnerable public as having proven efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions or illnesses, when it is known that there is nothing to support such claims.

Mr. Justice Eady’s ruling, May 7, 2009

This has me a bit confused because I thought the Advertising Standards Authority had already decided that certain treatment claims were unsupported (e.g., whiplash, colic and asthma). Thus, the chiros were knowingly providing ineffective procedures.

 

[Asolepius]

This has me a bit confused because I thought the Advertising Standards Authority had already decided that certain treatment claims were unsupported (e.g., whiplash, colic and asthma). Thus, the chiros were knowingly providing ineffective procedures.

This is my understanding. Eady uses the passive voice at the end, so we don't know what he meant by "it is known....". Did he mean that the BCA knew it, or that it is generally known? The latter can easily be shown, and moreover it seems inconceivable that the BCA could not have known that the treatments were generally known to be bogus by other parties. I am sounding a bit Sir Humphrey here I'm afraid.

 

[BillyJoe]

Eady is interpreting Simon Singh as saying that the BCA dishonestly and knowingly promotes bogus treatments. Therefore the accusation of libel stands unless Simon Singh can prove (that's right, Simon is guilty until proven innocent!) that the BCA dishonestly and knowingly promotes bogus treatments.

The legal opinion is that this is a difficult thing to prove (what is on someone's mind).
Also Simon has said elsewhere that he does not believe that the BCA dishonestly and knowingly promotes bogus treatments.

I still think the word "happily" was his downfall.

 

[shuttlt]

Eady is interpreting Simon Singh as saying that the BCA dishonestly and knowingly promotes bogus treatments. Therefore the accusation of libel stands unless Simon Singh can prove (that's right, Simon is guilty until proven innocent!) that the BCA dishonestly and knowingly promotes bogus treatments.

The legal opinion is that this is a difficult thing to prove (what is on someone's mind).
Also Simon has said elsewhere that he does not believe that the BCA dishonestly and knowingly promotes bogus treatments.

I still think the word "happily" was his downfall.

I agree completely. He wrote something whose pedantic, literalist interpretation he did not intend, and quite plausibly didn't believe. He is unfortunate that the judge decided that, even though he was writing in the opinion section and any fool can see he can't possibly know the contents of their minds, he was making a factual, literal claim. Unless he can overturn that, the case is lost.

 

[Mojo]

I still think the word "happily" was his downfall.

Or at least Eady's interpretation of it. Personally I'd have thought it implied recklessness rather than dishonesty.

 

[BenBurch]

I agree completely. He wrote something whose pedantic, literalist interpretation he did not intend, and quite plausibly didn't believe. He is unfortunate that the judge decided that, even though he was writing in the opinion section and any fool can see he can't possibly know the contents of their minds, he was making a factual, literal claim. Unless he can overturn that, the case is lost.

On the good side, if it can be delayed long enough, the judge may shuffle off this mortal coil and the whole matter will have to start from square one.

 

[BillyJoe]

Or at least Eady's interpretation of it. Personally I'd have thought it implied recklessness rather than dishonesty.

But read in that sentence, "the BCA happily promotes bogus treatments", it does seem to imply that the BCA knows they are bogus.

 

[rjh01]

Do you think Simon can persuade the judge to say that knowing includes should have known?

 

[BenBurch]

Do you think Simon can persuade the judge to say that knowing includes should have known?

No.

 

[Asolepius]

I am getting weary of playing word games, but I suppose that's what the law is all about. Simon's message in the article is obvious to all of us, and to the world in general. What really matters is whether a claim publicly made is valid. The claim was not new or an isolated case, it was very widespread and long standing. Nobody had any excuse for making it in the absence of evidence.

The odd thing is that Eady's ruling is at odds with a related legal principle. If someone makes a statement in big type and then counters it with a tiny disclaimer, a court will say that it's the overall message that matters, ie what the reader understands to be the message. The disclaimer will be dismissed. Now Simon's message might be interpreted in several subtle ways, but overall what he meant is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Can someone lend Eady a properly functioning cerebral hemisphere?

I don't for a moment think that Eady will be at all bothered about the Pandora's box he has opened. 10,000 signatures so far. This thing is now bigger that his silly game of Lexicon.

 

[Blue Wode]

Re 500+ complaints...

The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) wants to waive the rules
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1764

Also see here:
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/email-2-from-gcc.html

 

[shuttlt]

On the good side, if it can be delayed long enough, the judge may shuffle off this mortal coil and the whole matter will have to start from square one.

That might not be such a good strategy since Simon Singh may well end up having to pay costs for both sides.

 

[Blue Wode]

Statement just released by the General Chiropractic Council:
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_fi...vidence_based_care_17_June_09_(with_logo).pdf

 

[Rolfe]

Hmmm. Refers to "Sackett, 2000" but doesn't actually cite the reference.

“The integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values” sounds like an intent to use "patient satisfaction surveys" to support what they're doing, in default of actual evidence.

Rolfe.

 

[Asolepius]

Statement just released by the General Chiropractic Council:
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_fi...vidence_based_care_17_June_09_(with_logo).pdf

Hm....I will have to revisit Sackett 2000 and see how much wriggle room it gives the GCC. My recollection is that Sackett doesn't say that clinical expertise and patient values substitute for science, but that they are part of the mix. I predict though that the GCC will find ways of biassing the mix.

 

[Blue Wode]

Moving the goalposts (Part One):
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/06/moving-goalposts-part-one.html

 

[Blue Wode]

Just released - BCA statement on evidence:
http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/BCA Statement 170609.pdf

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't believe the BCA one bit, especially since they were offered a chance to write an article in the Guardian, free of charge, to present their evidence and counter-arguments. This is about stifling criticism and stopping those meddling scientists from looking into the claims of chiroquacktors.

 

[BillyJoe]

The integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values

In other words, when there is no scientific evidence, the individual chiropractor's personal experience that something works, or even just what patients want, is sufficient to validate the treatment.

 

[Asolepius]

Just released - BCA statement on evidence:
http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/BCA Statement 170609.pdf

The majority of the citations do not address the questions at issue. Klougart et al is a well known uncontrolled survey of no scientific value. Bronfort et al admit that any benefit has nothing to do with manipulation - so why does BCA cite it? I will have to read the others but I am not impressed by the titles of the journals.