• 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

BillyJoe said:
BTW, here's Simon Singh discussing chiropractic on the Australian News today (approx. 10mins):
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/07/06/2618503.htm
Click to expand...

Beat me to it!
I accidentally caught this live whilst flicking over at the ad breaks in the "Tour de France"
This is the first treatment I have seen of the issue in the Australian media.
Click to expand...


This is the segment that preceded the Simon Singh interview:
http://bit.ly/4YiTg
It does a pretty good, balanced job of exposing chiropractic for what it really is and, perhaps unsurprisingly, has provoked a swift and somewhat slippery response from the Chiropractors' Association of Australia:
http://www.chiropractors.asn.au/AM/...emplate=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5681


ETA: Simon Singh will be in Adelaide this week, and thereafter Sydney.
 
Last edited:
Good work, BCA, buggering up the chiropractic industry in Australia as well.

Any regrets about this libel case yet?
 
Blue Wode said:
... a swift and somewhat slippery response from the Chiropractors' Association of Australia:
http://www.chiropractors.asn.au/AM/...emplate=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5681
Click to expand...
Interesting they say -
It is important to realise that the chiropractic profession as a whole, generally doesn't claim to "treat" any condition, pain or symptom.
Click to expand...
A few minutes on Google Australia ...

This one claims to treat ...
... so does this one Flash site - click Chiropractic then 4 'We Treat'
... another
... again

I'm not saying these chiros claim to treat colic etc., just that they claim to 'treat'.
 
A few minutes on Google Australia ...

This one claims to treat ...
... so does this one Flash site - click Chiropractic then 4 'We Treat'
... another
... again
Click to expand...


You don't even need to Google it :)

Simon Floreani, who wrote the response, appears in the first video and says that there have been a number of studies indicating that "irritable baby syndrome" (colic), "has been successfully treated by chiropractors" (Around 3:16)

Of course, the weasel phrase "the chiropractic profession as a whole" leaves a door open to escape through. If one chiropractor, somewhere, doesn't claim to treat anything then the statement holds true. The problem, however, is that the chiropractic profession as a whole also doesn't claim NOT to treat a whole lot of things they appear to have very little supporting evidence for.

He also complains about using the term "chiropractic therapy", but that term too is quite popular once you go looking for it - including an abstract on the CAA's own website.

Thanks Blue Wode for keeping things up to date. I missed these completely.
 
Last edited:
I may be reading too much into it but are there grounds for making a complaint against the BCA to the GCC on the grounds that the BCA, collectively and/or as individuals, are implicitly in breach of the act by implying in their suit that chiropractic can treat certain conditions?
Sorry about the sentence length.
 
I love the quotation they use from Simon, saying that he only knows about science and maths. Do they really want to imply that chiropractic isn't science-based?
 
I note the CAA say "The CAA is concerned that the Lateline report attempts to link one trial involving manipulation undertaken by physiotherapists as an equivalent to chiropractic spinal adjustments. Where is the evidence to prove that these are one and the same thing?" I recall the BCA's plethora of information included non-Chiropractic adjustment? Perhaps Simon could persuade someone from the CAA to testify against the shoddy evidence produced by the BCA:D


I sent a letter to my MP complaining about this case and Libel law a while ago. I got a reply today to say my letter has been forwarded to Rt Hon. Michael Wills in the Ministry of Justice. If anything exciting results I will report it here.
 
Last edited:
I've been searching for a something on the internet defending the BCA position. So far, effectively nothing. Many chiropractors don't defend them, though their reasoning differs from ours. My understanding is that within the chiropractic community, the BCA represents the evidence based position (all be it in a flawed way). The more vitalistic chiropractors are more than happy for us to tear strips out of the BCA. The net result of all this could be to widen the split within chiropractic, or it could be to drive the whole lot towards the woo.
 
From Mojo's link.

It is my sincere contention that if the exact same evidence (even leaving out the lack of plausibility) existed for a medical treatment, it would be abandoned as a worthless dead end. At the very least, use would stop until further research were done. There might even be concerns about the ethics of further research given the negative evidence and lack of plausibility.
Click to expand...


I am so going to steal that.

Rolfe.
 
Pipirr said:
Good work, BCA, buggering up the chiropractic industry in Australia as well.

Any regrets about this libel case yet?
Click to expand...

They have only just BEGUN to pay for this.

If the Scientologists think that "Anonymous" was a problem, just wait to see what we Skeptics do to the Chiroquacks.

In ten years, it will actually be illegal to practice Chiropractic in most of the world.
 
Mojo said:
Apart from the "Homeopathy Worked For Me" campaign.
Click to expand...
You're quite right of course. I had come across the Gimpy article you linked to and then instantly forgot it as it just seemed to be about a group of shouty homeopaths. I guess I've been looking for somebody offering a defense in the sense of a reasoned argument in favor of chiropractic, rather than getting argumentative and defensive about chiropractic.

The Halloween Science text that they present as a critique of Trick or Treatment is kind of what I'm looking for:
http://www.homeopathyworkedforme.org/halloween-science/4533482584#
the problem is that it's 142 pages long and I'd have to rewrite the whole thing to try and turn it into something other than an inconsistent mess.

It's odd that the site doesn't allow comments. The only form of interaction it does seem to invite is donations.
 
shuttlt said:
It's odd that the site doesn't allow comments. The only form of interaction it does seem to invite is donations.
Click to expand...


They used to have a page on which you could vote.

It said "homeopathy worked for me" and had the single option, "yes".
 
Crap like Halloween Science is surely not addressed to anybody vaguely sceptical. Critiquing it is hardly more worthwhile as the homeopaths don't seem very interested in engaging with us (Dana aside). The whole thing is just intellectual masturbation. The woos sit there intellectually pleasuring themselves over their 'arguments', we sit here intellectually pleasuring ourselves with ours. If only there was some way to cross the divide and intellectually pleasure one another.
 
Not strictly on topic, but this excellent blog post from Thinking Is Real does take an interesting look at the Australian chiropractic industry's penchant for weasel words and its contradictory claims in relation to the management of colic:
http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2...eat-colic.html
Click to expand...

Thanks Blue Wode. It does follow from the previous article where I did mention the BCA at least once - so it is kind of on topic :)

Singh will be in Australia next week so hopefully there'll be more news to report.


EDITED because I messed up quite a bit.
 
Last edited:
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