British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Jack of Kent]

Now I suppose we sit and wait for months while the BCA decides what to do. Jack - how long have they got?

There are more exchanges of legal documents to come (and BCA can amend their case), but unless settled (or the case is dropped), then I guess the trial will be spring/summer next year.

 

[shadron]

Many thanks indeed. It is clear a lot of hard work went into the Defence.

It is also clear from the article as a whole that Simon Singh means evidence sufficient to the task it was being put (ie, scientific/clinical purposes), when he says that there is "not a jot" of evidence. The BCA's case is misconceived; I suspect they litigated without thinking it all through first.

It is commendable that Simon Singh is not backing down in the face of such legalistic intimidation.

Yes and yes. It is great to see chiropractic being brought to the stand, and doubly so for having caused it through their own actions. It is very reminiscent of the Dover school board's actions, particularly when their own lawyer told them at the very beginning that proceeding as they were was very risky legally. I really want to hear the English version of Ken Miller when he testifies, if it gets to that.

Kudos to Simon and also to you for reporting on this.

 

[JJM]

{snip} On a more serious note about a decade ago some major chiropractors in North America published a study that slammed the practices of the majority of chiropractors and chiropractic schools. {snip}

Gord in Toronto, this might be the study you're looking for: {snip}

That is a very good catch BW. Stephen Barrett (MD) has his own take on the same material [FONT=&quot]http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/webclaims.html

ETA Another article by Barrett citing another chiro article pointing out misstatements in their brochures [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]http://www.chirobase.org/04Ads/brochures.html [/FONT]

 

[Mojo]

Yes, of course this puts chiropractic on trial. But even more importantly, if it goes to court, it will set the precedent of what constitutes evidence for effectiveness of health care inteventions of any kind. Who knows, we may find this case cited wherever scientific evidence is disputed.

I would be wary of the idea that the courts are a good place to decide on scientific or medical matters. Whoever wins this particular case.

ETA: looking back at the thread, I think I'm with Jack on this one:

This should not be a legal matter. The court is not the appropriate place to test claims of this kind.

It is always annoying when the Woos try and use "legal muscle" to close down debates and prevent scrutiny.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>
Gord in Toronto, this might be the study you're looking for:

<snip>
http://dcscience.net/nzmj-ernst-reply-050908.pdf

Yes that appears to be it. The National Post was a (somewhat) better newspaper at the time the study was published and had a science columnist who relished this sort of study. The chiros took a bit of a hammering in Canada as a result of the [SIZE=-0]Lana Dale Lewis case but seemed to have recovered nicely.

[/SIZE]Jaroslaw P. Grod, DC, FCCS(C) has published other papers. From a cursory scan via Google he seems to be a believer in chiropractic but acknowledges there is not much scientific support for it and does not like the excesses. I suppose the hope is that the "profession" will clear out all the quackery (god alone knows what's left at that point ) and the DC will be recognized alongside the DO (in the US) and MD as a valid way of doing real medicine. At which point we can all hang up our hats and go home.

 

[Asolepius]

I would be wary of the idea that the courts are a good place to decide on scientific or medical matters. Whoever wins this particular case.

ETA: looking back at the thread, I think I'm with Jack on this one:

I am not for a moment suggesting that the courts are a good place, but if this does go to court then de facto the matter will be decided, rightly or wrongly. One might expect lawyers to understand and respect evidence, but the reality is that they do their very best to denigrate and misinterpret scientific evidence if it doesn't support their client's case. That's their job of course. This will be interesting in that the lawyers on both sides will be arguing as to what evidence is, and maybe for the first time (in the UK) they will have to face up to scientific definitions of it. They did this at the Dover-Penn trial and I don't think anyone who supports evolution thinks that the outcome was inappropropriate, or that it didn't set a useful precedent legally.

 

[Mojo]

They did this at the Dover-Penn trial and I don't think anyone who supports evolution thinks that the outcome was inappropropriate, or that it didn't set a useful precedent legally.

While it did involve discussion of the nature of a scientific theory, American cases to do with teaching various forms of creationism in public schools are not particularly good precedents here, because what they're ultimately deciding on is not how likely the "theories" involved are to be true, but whether they're religious in character. The case didn't set a precedent that is useful anywhere other than in American courts, and then only if they're considering whether promoting ID can be publicly funded. And given different evidence (they didn't hear from Dembski in the Dover trial, for example) another court could say that they're not bound by the precedent as the facts presented were not the same.

A further complication in the current case is that libel trials in the UK are usually decided by a jury. There may be discussions before judges of whether the words complained of can have the meaning claimed, and what defences etc. are allowed to go forwards, but if it comes down to it the question of whether it's defamatory will go to the jury.

 

[Darat]

But don't forget a legal case that gets to court can be useful in many ways. It can show where perhaps legislation needs to be created or amended, for people looking to do something similar in the future it can provide good precedence for legal advice and so on.

 

[Mojo]

But don't forget a legal case that gets to court can be useful in many ways. It can show where perhaps legislation needs to be created or amended, for people looking to do something similar in the future it can provide good precedence for legal advice and so on.

It might be something for prospective litigants in future libel cases to consider, but once things have got that far the scientific forums of arguments have pretty much been abandoned.

 

[Asolepius]

While it did involve discussion of the nature of a scientific theory, American cases to do with teaching various forms of creationism in public schools are not particularly good precedents here, because what they're ultimately deciding on is not how likely the "theories" involved are to be true, but whether they're religious in character. The case didn't set a precedent that is useful anywhere other than in American courts, and then only if they're considering whether promoting ID can be publicly funded. And given different evidence (they didn't hear from Dembski in the Dover trial, for example) another court could say that they're not bound by the precedent as the facts presented were not the same.

Of course I'm not suggesting that a US case sets a UK legal precedent. But within the constraints of the case concerned some subsequent cases will surely draw upon it to some extent.

A further complication in the current case is that libel trials in the UK are usually decided by a jury. There may be discussions before judges of whether the words complained of can have the meaning claimed, and what defences etc. are allowed to go forwards, but if it comes down to it the question of whether it's defamatory will go to the jury.

I totally agree that juries can be perfidious. This is a risky case for both sides. But if a jury decides that BCA does not offer credible evidence for its claims, what does that mean for the practice of chiropractic? What does it mean for the public understanding of what evidence is? Whatever the outcome, is it a good or bad thing that the nature of the evidence be debated publicly?

 

[Jack of Kent]

This is a brief primer for all of those coming to this matter for the first time.

1. The British Chiropractic Association published a brochure promoting Chiropractic for young people, especially in respect of six named ailments (including the potentially serious ailments of asthma and frequent ear infections). See http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Happy families.pdf

2. Simon wrote a "Comment is Free" piece in the Guardian, which amongst other things, criticised the BCA for promoting Chiropractic for such ailments, see http://svetlana14s.narod.ru/Simon_Singhs_silenced_paper.html

3. The news of a libel claim broke in August 2008. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/2570744/Doctors-take-Simon-Singh-to-court.html

4. The blogosphere reacted promptly. The best round up is at: http://holfordwatch.info/2008/08/16/british-chiropractors-join-the-legal-intimidation-party/ and also see Blue Wode's posts above.

5. I have now copies of the Claim Form and Defence, properly gained from the English High Court's court file, see summaries at:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-bcas-case-against-simon-singh.html and http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-putting-chiropractic-on-trial.html

 

[Mojo]

If it gets that far, is it possible (or even likely) that the case would in fact be heard without a jury as in, for example, this case which also deals with allegations about specific medical procedures?

 

[Acleron]

Face book now has a group

For Simon Singh and Free Speech - Against the BCA Libel Claim

Those with an account are invited to join.

 

[Blue Wode]

Face book now has a group

For Simon Singh and Free Speech - Against the BCA Libel Claim

Those with an account are invited to join.

Here's the link:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634&ref=mf

And for those who may have missed it, here's the latest from the Quackometer:

Chiropractic Folly and the Nature of Evidence
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/11/chiropractic-folly-and-nature-of.html

Snippet-

It looks like the Chiropractors are on a hiding to nothing. That does not mean that I think Singh will automatically win. The legal courtroom is not the place to decide scientific issues: it decides legal ones, and we all know that the law, at times, can be perverse. Rather, we have a game of high stakes now where, if the chiropractors go ahead, we are going to see lots of arguments like the above and the evidence for chiropractic put in the spotlight. Even if by some freak, the chiropractors win, they may well suffer many humiliations in the process. The world is watching, the press is watching and it is going to be a show.

 

[Mojo]

The case has been covered in this week's Private Eye (No 1225, 12-25th December 2008, p.12):

Unusually, the BCA is targeting Singh personally rather than his publisher or newspapers that have carried his articles. But if the BCA thought Singh would be intimidated by the threat of personal bankruptcy, it picked the wrong man to frighten. He is determined to fight. "There is an important issue of freedom of speech at stake," he says.
The case promises to be a clash between evidence-based medicine and its rivals. Singh will be able to quote from dozens of peer-reviewed papers to contradict the BCA's claims.

 

[BillC]

The case has been covered in this week's Private Eye (No 1225, 12-25th December 2008, p.12):

I wonder what is going behind the scenes at Private Eye on that one. Their medical correspondent "M.D."

It's Dr Phil Hammond, for those who didn't know.

has shown a decidedly pro-sCAM stance on occasions.

 

[fuelair]

In UK usage also. Person PhD is usually referred to as Dr Person.

Dr Person PhD, is either a Medical Doctor with a PhD or a pretentious idiot.

a certain person in the local educational system has business cards that name her (not as a joke) as Dr. Mary P. Whoknows PhD. Most of her professional acquaintances I am aware of refer to her (other than in personal contact) as Dr. doctor.

 

[Mojo]

I wonder what is going behind the scenes at Private Eye on that one. Their medical correspondent "M.D."

It's Dr Phil Hammond, for those who didn't know.

has shown a decidedly pro-sCAM stance on occasions.

And then there's their stance on MMR (although they seem to have stopped mentioning it).

 

[Asolepius]

I wonder what is going behind the scenes at Private Eye on that one. Their medical correspondent "M.D."

It's Dr Phil Hammond, for those who didn't know.

has shown a decidedly pro-sCAM stance on occasions.

Phil Hammond is primarily a comedian, judging by his speech at the Oxford Union recently (I was there).

 

[BillC]

He is is better known as a comedian, but he is primarily a GP, and he was speaking from a medical standpoint.