British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

He says "The BCA .... supports high quality research which objectively informs and evolves the evidence base and would exhort chiropractors to modify their practices where conclusive evidence demonstrates ineffectiveness or a real risk of serious adverse events. "

Can he explain why high quality evidence demonstrates ineffectiveness was not passed to the court. Perhaps their support is theoretical and not practical.

You can't possibly be suggesting that they would knowingly promote treatements that are refuted by high quality evidence. I do not imagine that could possibly be the case.

 

[Beerina]

"Chiropractic is false and doesn't work. Here's evidence (scene similar to the end of Miracle on 34th Street)".



What part of that isn't working right in the British justice system?

 

[thaiboxerken]

You guys just don't understand, the evidence for chiropractic is homeopathic in nature.

 

[Lothian]

You can't possibly be suggesting that they would knowingly promote treatements that are refuted by high quality evidence. I do not imagine that could possibly be the case.

I think they now are fully aware that anyone claiming that chiropractic can cure • asthma • colic • prolonged crying • sleep and feeding problems • breathing difficulties • hyperactivity • bedwetting and • frequent infections, especially in the ears are making a bogus claim. I would also expect that a lauded regulator of the chiropractic profession in the UK would hold a similar view.
I would expect that they would be able to explain why they claimed that

There is evidence to show that chiropractic care has
helped children with:
• asthma
• colic
• prolonged crying
• sleep and feeding problems
• breathing difficulties
• hyperactivity
• bedwetting
• frequent infections, especially in the ears

I would also expect that they would apologise for misleading the public and would prompt their members to refund anyone falsely "treated" for ailments for which there is no evidence to show that chiropractic care has helped.

Perhaps I will be disappointed.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I think they now are fully aware that anyone claiming that chiropractic can cure • asthma • colic • prolonged crying • sleep and feeding problems • breathing difficulties • hyperactivity • bedwetting and • frequent infections, especially in the ears are making a bogus claim. I would also expect that a lauded regulator of the chiropractic profession in the UK would hold a similar view.
I would expect that they would be able to explain why they claimed that I would also expect that they would apologise for misleading the public and would prompt their members to refund anyone falsely "treated" for ailments for which there is no evidence to show that chiropractic care has helped.

Perhaps I will be disappointed.

I further expect they can provide a clear explanation of the difference between "treating" a condition and "helping" with it.

 

[Blue Wode]

Mr Brown's claim about chiropractors only helping, but not treating or curing*, is completely contradicted by one of the officers of the BCA, Tim Hutchful. Mr Hutchful, who is secretary of the BCA and has been in charge of its marketing for 10 years, claims the following:

"My eldest patient was 97, my youngest patient ever was about three months old. The three-month-old was treated for colic..."

http://chiropracticlive.com/promoti...-would-think-the-bca-had-learned-that-by-now/

Keep digging that hole, Mr Brown.


ETA: *Link: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/jul08_4/b2766#217334

 

[fls]

I further expect they can provide a clear explanation of the difference between "treating" a condition and "helping" with it.

Well, treating a condition implies some sort of action against the condition.

Helping implies some sort of assistance provided to the condition.

In that case, their statement that there is a plethora of evidence that they help is actually correct...

Linda

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I think they now are fully aware that anyone claiming that chiropractic can cure • asthma • colic • prolonged crying • sleep and feeding problems • breathing difficulties • hyperactivity • bedwetting and • frequent infections, especially in the ears are making a bogus claim. I would also expect that a lauded regulator of the chiropractic profession in the UK would hold a similar view.
I would expect that they would be able to explain why they claimed that I would also expect that they would apologise for misleading the public and would prompt their members to refund anyone falsely "treated" for ailments for which there is no evidence to show that chiropractic care has helped.

Perhaps I will be disappointed.

 

[volatile]

Mr Brown's claim about chiropractors only helping, but not treating or curing*, is completely contradicted by one of the officers of the BCA, Tim Hutchful. Mr Hutchful, who is secretary of the BCA and has been in charge of its marketing for 10 years, claims the following:



Keep digging that hole, Mr Brown.


ETA: *Link: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/jul08_4/b2766#217334

Pleeeeaassse post that on the BMJ (or forward it to Ernst or Colquhoun)!

 

[Delscottio]

Mr Brown's claim about chiropractors only helping, but not treating or curing*, is completely contradicted by one of the officers of the BCA, Tim Hutchful. Mr Hutchful, who is secretary of the BCA and has been in charge of its marketing for 10 years, claims the following:



Keep digging that hole, Mr Brown.


ETA: *Link: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/jul08_4/b2766#217334

For a "professional" body to be thrashing around like this is horrible yet compelling viewing.

It is about time one of the National Daily papers did a proper hatchet job on them - hopefully it won't be too long.

 

[shuttlt]

Surely whether they say they are curing/treating/helping is just a flag of convenience to avoid legal trouble. It's really just the same tack that BJ Palmer took to avoid chiropractors getting done for practicing medicine without a license at the beginning of the 20th century.

If 'helping with' isn't covered by treating the disease, or treating the symptoms then what does it mean? You aren't better, you don't feel better, but you feel better about not feeling better?

 

[Delscottio]

Surely whether they say they are curing/treating/helping is just a flag of convenience to avoid legal trouble. It's really just the same tack that BJ Palmer took to avoid chiropractors getting done for practicing medicine without a license at the beginning of the 20th century.

If 'helping with' isn't covered by treating the disease, or treating the symptoms then what does it mean? You aren't better, you don't feel better, but you feel better about not feeling better?

I keep thinking about this, what would be the probable outcome if someone other than a doctor claimed to be able to help cancer suffers*

I can't see much difference apart from the severity of illness.

Context - Whilst claiming to be a health care professional.

 

[JJM]

Pleeeeaassse post that on the BMJ (or forward it to Ernst or Colquhoun)!

I did post "Please keep digging" but I don't think I stole it from Blue Wode, I think we both plagiarized Edzard Ernst.

Besides the treat v help argument, he also introduced a defense of neck-manipulation. Why? That is not relevant.

 

[AndyD]

From the letter...

...Ernst characterises it as potentially lethal based on single case reports when he summarily dismisses any potential of benefit demonstrated by a similar level of evidence.

It seems to me that he is, here, conceding that the evidence FOR chiropractic is of a "similar level" to that which shows it to be "potentially lethal". Yet, while he wants us to ignore the latter evidence, on the basis that it is weak, he insists the former is relevant.

In other words, he's doing, it appears, what he's accusing Ernst of doing but in reverse.

Now, whilst it might be correct that both authors are doing the very same thing with differing intents, a risk/benefit assessment should surely give more weight to the "potentially lethal" risks than it does to the potential benefits. After all, if the practitioner said "Look Ma'am, this might 'help' him with his colic but it just as easily might kill him", would we really expect most parents to proceed with the treatm, er "help".

And then there's this...

It supports high quality research which objectively informs and evolves the evidence base and would exhort chiropractors to modify their practices where conclusive evidence demonstrates ineffectiveness or a real risk of serious adverse events

As I read it, that would mean they could make a claim about the efficacy of chiropractic for anything at all and then apply it for that purpose until such time as someone does a trial that explicitly dismisses it as effective for that ailment. Is it ever really possible to prove something "ineffective"?

Why is he still repeating the "We weren't allowed to reply in the Guardian" line?

I can't see where he said that. If you mean...

Readers should not forget that the BCA resorted to legal action only after requests to correct libellous statements were refused.

Then I think that means Singh refused to write a retraction. Or do I need to read it all again and pay more attention?

For a "professional" body to be thrashing around like this is horrible yet compelling viewing.

Absolutely. I'm wondering what life will be like when it's over. It will be the end of an era.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Then I think that means Singh refused to write a retraction. Or do I need to read it all again and pay more attention?

The BCA wanted a retraction and an apology, which they didn't get. They were offered a chance to put their counter-arguments in The Guardian but reportedly declined it and went for libel suit instead.

 

[Mojo]

The BCA wanted a retraction and an apology, which they didn't get. They were offered a chance to put their counter-arguments in The Guardian but reportedly declined it and went for libel suit instead.

I've seen a few suggestions that the reason they sued was because they'd been accused of deliberate dishonesty. See For example Milgrom's comment here ("it implied chiropractors are knowingly mendacious.") or the comment from the World Federation of Chiropractic quoted by Blue Wode here ("The BCA, accused of being deliberately dishonest, sued for libel and won in a High Court ruling on May 7, 2009."). I was in court for the hearing, and although this was the interpretation the judge decided to put on the words complained of, it wasn't one actually argued for by the BCA's counsel, who as far as I remember concentrated mostly on the "not a jot of evidence" bit and opened her argument by saying that she was not going to argue that the words meant that the BCA was deliberately dishonest.

 

[Mojo]

Incidentally, there's been a poll on the "Sacral Musings" board:

Poll: "Do you support the BCA in their proceedings against Simon Singh?"

Results are in! 5% Yes, 95% No

 

[BillyJoe]

...at least they had the "no" option in there.

 

[BillyJoe]

BSM said:

The BCA wanted a retraction and an apology, which they didn't get. They were offered a chance to put their counter-arguments in The Guardian but reportedly declined it and went for libel suit instead.

BSM, I think Andy agrees with you.

Andy said:

Why is he still repeating the "We weren't allowed to reply in the Guardian" line?

I can't see where he said that. If you mean...

Readers should not forget that the BCA resorted to legal action only after requests to correct libellous statements were refused.

Then I think that means Singh refused to write a retraction. Or do I need to read it all again and pay more attention?

 

[BillyJoe]

the BCA's counsel ... concentrated mostly on the "not a jot of evidence" bit and opened her argument by saying that she was not going to argue that the words meant that the BCA was deliberately dishonest.

I'm pretty sure that the way Jack of Kent reported it as well.