• 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

shuttlt said:
Apologies for looping the thread back to yesterday... but surely thing A is only evidence of thing B if, in the absence of thing B, you wouldn't expect to find thing A. If you do a bunch of trials with p=0.05 and one in every twenty shows chiropractic works, they aren't evidence that chiropractic works. If you treat a bunch of people with self limiting conditions and many of them kind of seem to get better, that isn't evidence that your treatment works. The chiropractors evidence isn't evidence in any sense that I understand it. They're sitting, surrounded by black swans, clutching a couple of mangy white ones claiming their evidence that all swans are white.

Surely this is a position that can be defended in court? I mean, if a judge can't understand what evidence is then... well, I'm more than a little dissappointed. Still, if I murder someone in broad daylight in front of witnesses, perhaps being able to produce billions of happy, satisfied people who I haven't murdered will count as evidence that I'm innocent?
Click to expand...


Well, no. This position is sound in science but not necessarily sound in law. You and I know that by data-dredging and cherry-picking you can find "evidence" to support practically any looney proposition. We therefore implicitly and automatically discount such "evidence" when discussing the strength of support for any given proposition.

Lawyers don't think that way. "Oh yes Dr. Smartarse, I'm sure you have found 3,000 high-quality double-blind controlled studies that report homoeopathy to be nothing more than expensive sugar pills. However my client relies on this study I present to the court where in a small group of children with mild diarrhoea those receiving homoeopathic treatment had one fewer loose stool on day three of the trial compared to the control group. I put to you, this most certainly is a "jot" of evidence, however cavalierly you may dismiss it!" (This study does exist. There was no different between the treated or control groups on either day two or day four. Homoeopaths generally don't mention this aspect.)

Nevertheless I'm enormously entertained to observe the way the BCA's plethora of evidence is being demolished before their eyes. I think they'll be making a bad mistake if they go to court on it. Twenty-nine papers. But then when you take out those that have nothing to do with the stated conditions in paediatric patients (including those citing osteopathy, or where the patients were adults), you're left with a lot fewer. Looking at these, there is evidence of quote-mining which will do them no good at all, as it surely has to be evidence suggestive of knowing deception, and some extremely questionable methodologies.

I can just imagine a good barrister tossing the irrelevant papers away one at a time, and then turning to the much-reduced pile. Then it appears that the BCA failed to list some high-quality studies which showed no effect, choosing instead poor-quality studies claiming effect. There is reason to question any assertion on their part that they were unaware of the high-quality studies (these are included in review material they have cited, I believe), so their choice to conceal these and rely on poor quality material is again evidence to suggest deliberate dishonesty.

I believe a good barrister supported by an expert in the design and interpretation of medical trials (paging Asolepius....) could make mincemeat of this and present a good case that the BCA is in fact knowingly dishonest.

Rolfe.
 
Some end of the week blogging…

No room for the evidence
(A short letter on BCA Vice President Richard Brown's very poor defence of chiropractic)
http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/no-room-for-the-evidence/

"We don't regulate clinics or companies": The GCC Respond to my [M J Robbins] BCA Complaint
http://www.layscience.net/node/600

Contacting The Privy Council: GCC Moving The Goalposts
http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/contacting-the-privy-council-gcc-moving-the-goalposts/

Revenge of the Singh
http://godknowswhat.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/revenge-of-the-singh/


Also, 12,000 people have signed to Keep Libel Laws out of Science:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/
 
You know, back in the day, we had friends who could head around to places like the BCA and "set them straight."

Mind you, they would have needed more than Chiropractic to recover from that discussion...

Yeah, the family bar I grew up in was in the sway of the "Outfit."
 
yeah, the whole think is a ****ing sham. how can they go after a writer for this while ignoring blatant, cynical quackery?
 
Rolfe said:
I believe a good barrister supported by an expert in the design and interpretation of medical trials (paging Asolepius....) could make mincemeat of this and present a good case that the BCA is in fact knowingly dishonest.
Click to expand...
Did somebody call? Well my problem is that I don't have `professor' in front of my name. This seems to influence the court more, no matter how much of an academic airhead the bearer is. Hotbeds of CAM pseudoscience such as Westminster and Southampton spring to mind. I bow to the great David Colquhoun whose powers of explanation regarding what evidence is are peerless.

However, I am coming round to the view that this battle may be more likely won outside the courtroom. The BCA has put up such an astonishingly pathetic show on the central matter of evidence, that the supposed role of chiropractors as bona fide primary care clinicians is being eroded daily.

I had a very positive meeting with Simon (and others) yesterday, and believe me you will not find anyone more committed to fighting for what is right. All the blogging and other activism are a massive help - keep it up everyone!
 
thaiboxerken said:
It would be great if this could get into the mainstream media.
Click to expand...

Asolepius said:
It's starting to, eg http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article6493564.ece?Submitted=true
Click to expand...
From the comments to timesonline link (all positive btw) -
Mike Williams said:
The eyes of the world are upon the UK for its handling of this matter in every aspect: the particulars of the BCA case, the intrusion of libel laws into matters of scientific and medical inquiry, and the support that libel tourism gives to those who would quash freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Now even a few days ago I'd have agreed with Mike's sentiment and admired his succinct summary but thought his "eyes of the world" a bit grandiose. "Eyes of the sceptical blogosphere" would have been nearer the mark.
Now I'm starting to believe that this will indeed get into the mainstream and, moreover, that Dr Singh will win this battle because the BCA will cave in. The media love a a good underdog and a good "the law is an ass" story - BCA v. Singh is both. This is going to get (even more) interesting ...
 
Last edited:
Asolepius said:
It's starting to, eg http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article6493564.ece?Submitted=true
Click to expand...


I read this before but I don't quite understand it:

Although Wilmshurst’s comments were made in America, to an American journalist from an American website, about an American company, the case has been brought to an English court
Click to expand...


Why would an American bother defending himself in an English court?
Why not just stay home and blow his nose at them over the airways?
 
Dragon said:
From the comments to timesonline link (all positive btw) -
Now even a few days ago I'd have agreed with Mike's sentiment and admired his succinct summary but thought his "eyes of the world" a bit grandiose. "Eyes of the sceptical blogosphere" would have been nearer the mark.
Now I'm starting to believe that this will indeed get into the mainstream and, moreover, that Dr Singh will win this battle because the BCA will cave in. The media love a a good underdog and a good "the law is an ass" story - BCA v. Singh is both. This is going to get (even more) interesting ...
Click to expand...

I will try to get this onto the radio shows I have influence over.
 
BillyJoe said:
I read this before but I don't quite understand it:




Why would an American bother defending himself in an English court?
Why not just stay home and blow his nose at them over the airways?
Click to expand...
At the risk of appearing trite -
  1. he can get his antagonist to stfu
  2. he can get a load of money off him
- this is what is called "libel tourism" and if you think it stinks then join the club ...
 
Last edited:
This blogger has emailed the BCA to ask them for their search strategy, key terms used to identify papers, papers included/excluded in their search, how they appraised the papers finally selected, and how they use these papers to directly inform their treatment of infants:
http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/?p=857

I wonder if they'll answer.
 
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