British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

But here is a quote from one of Joe Ierano's websites
http://www.chiropracticierano.com.au/diff/what.html
Quote:
We do not treat diseases like colic or multiple sclerosis...we strengthen the structural system of the body to give some relief.
Apparently to give some relief is not to treat!
Click to expand...
But how can it make any difference? Claiming that chiropractic can give some relief to (as opposed to treat) MS sufferers doesn't absolve him from requiring evidence to back up that claim.
Click to expand...


This has become the standard mantra, or battle-cry perhaps, of chiropractic and the alt-med industry in general. Fuelled in part, I suspect, by the fact that therapeutic claims tend to get noticed, reported and dealt with. In the case of claims by those providing treatment, I suspect the HCCC (NSW only?) or ACCC are the ones to take an interest whilst the advertising of products can be dealt with by the TGA (in Australia, that is).

Here's what the Chiropractors' Association of Australia had to say in response to a Lateline program earlier this year...

It is important to realise that chiropractic doesn't "treat" any condition, pain or symptom. Chiropractic care reduces interferences to the body's ability to function optimally, and works to restore complete normal function. Chiropractors fundamentally see themselves as diagnosing and taking care of patients with dysfunctions in the neuromusculoskeletal system, including the spine and joints.
Click to expand...


I'd suggest there's an apparent attempt to redifine what "treatment" is in this disclaimer. In a medical sense, according to dictionary.com, the appropriate definition of "treat" is...

* 3 - to deal with (a disease, patient, etc.) in order to relieve or cure.
Click to expand...


So, based on that definition, if you "deal with" a "patient" in order to "relieve or cure", then you're treating.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if cracking backs in the hope that colic might happen to respond positively isn't treatment, then what does constitute treatment? Putting a broken limb in plaster isn't treatment since the bone heals itself. Replacing a heart or lung isn't treatment since, once you've finished messing about with all that mechanical stuff like cutting and stitching, the body has to do all the healing. Antibiotics don't treat, they just kill some bugs so the immune system can get the body on the road to recovery.

And if they aren't cracking backs in the explicit hope of relieving colic, asthma, otitis, etc, then how do they explain their intervention to the customer who comes in looking for relief from those very complaints?

If we took alt-med's definition of "treat", the word would become redundant.

I covered this and other weasel words in a lengthy blog post a while back.

I wonder if Joe Ierano saw the issue of Cosmos magazine, an Australian science mag, that carried the very same Simon Singh article as the Oz Skeptics published?
 
Last edited:
Lothian, I got a very similar reply from the minister.

Anyone else sent a letter?
 
BillyJoe said:
Christoper Hitches reveals that he once wrote a piece about Roman Polanski's alleged rape of a thirteen year old girl 30 years ago (for which he was recently arrested whilst attending a film festival in Switzerland). According to Hitchens, Polanski sued successfully in England (despite the article having been written in America), successfully silenced any further public discussion of his alleged crime, and went off with a great deal of their money. In Hitchens words: "I hope he gets screwed this time" or words to that effect.
Click to expand...

That's not quite right. Polanski sued Vogue because they said he had attempted to seduce a woman on his way to the funeral of his wife, Sharon Tate, who had just been murdered. The case had nothing to do with the crime he is currently in gaol for.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117926364.html?categoryid=22&cs=1
 
Last edited:
JJM,

Sure, the thread does drift a little between Singh/BCA news events but it's not quite anarchy yet :) We've only got 21 pages after more than a year of activity.

The Joe Ierano stuff was relevant since the complaint was actually about the Singh article published by Oz Skeptics and he made claims about the court case. A lot of the other discussions that have occurred have also had pretty direct links to the Singh/BCA saga. The fallout is quite widespread.

I'm sure the moderators will step in if we get too far out of hand.

The other thread is still worthwhile but people do tend to drift back to this one - because it's stickied I suspect.
 
Last edited:
The launch meeting of Westminster Skeptics will be on Tuesday 13 October 2009 at The Barley Mow pub, Horseferry Road, Westminster, from 7pm.

Speakers will be Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, and Nick Cohen. It will be chaired by me.

This meeting - the day before Simon's next hearing - will be a briefing on the case to date and a discussion of the wider campaign against the misuse of libel law.

Do come along if you can.

Best wishes
Jack
 
Blue Wode said:
The General Chiropractic Council is knowingly and deliberately violating its own code of practice
http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/10/general-chiropractic-council-is.html
Click to expand...

A recent complaint against the BCA was rejected by the GCC on the grounds that the "GCC regulates individual chiropractors and we have no role in the regulation of chiropractic associations, clinics or companies. We cannot, therefore, investigate a complaint against the British Chiropractic Association."

See http://layscience.net/node/600

On the same basis, it could be argued that the GCC isn't bound by its own code.
 
Could somebody remind me: why does it cost 140 times as much to run a libel case in Britain than elsewhere in Europe (-Ireland)? Do the judges and administration get much higher salaries than elsewhere? Are the lawyers better paid? Is the state pocketing the extra money?
 
steenkh said:
Could somebody remind me: why does it cost 140 times as much to run a libel case in Britain than elsewhere in Europe (-Ireland)? Do the judges and administration get much higher salaries than elsewhere? Are the lawyers better paid? Is the state pocketing the extra money?
Click to expand...
I don't think you pay a court to get a case heard.

However loser pays the legal costs of the other side. That encourages people to throw money at the case knowing that the more spent makes a win more likely and it less likely that you pay anything. Cases are heard in the high court so you need a barrister to represent you and they are not cheap.

So extra costs are mainly Legal fees (+ VAT). So yes to Lawyers and the state.
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
Could somebody remind me: why does it cost 140 times as much to run a libel case in Britain than elsewhere in Europe?
Click to expand...

Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs), the extraordinary length of court procedings, and the large number of lawyers involved in each case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/19/no-win-no-fee-lawyers-shackling-newspapers

where a client has the benefit of a CFA or similar agreement, the client no longer has an incentive to exercise control over the legal work being done and to resist cost increases. This naturally erodes the client's resistance to high costs and distorts the costs control mechanism normally inherent to the market...
Click to expand...
CFAs enable lawyers to take libel cases ... on a no win, no fee basis which means that if they win they can charge the losing side up to twice their normal hourly fee at a rate of up to £800 an hour.
Click to expand...
One reason for the high costs in England and Wales was the number of lawyers involved in each case, combined with the length of court proceedings...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
However loser pays the legal costs of the other side. That encourages people to throw money at the case knowing that the more spent makes a win more likely and it less likely that you pay anything.
Click to expand...
At TAM London Simon Singh told us that he would still stand to lose £20,000 if wins the case. It seems that even if the BCA have to pay his legal costs, there is still something that he will have to take out of his own pocket.

He explained that the cost were so high regardless if you win or lose the case, that most just settle out of court. No wonder they call it chilling!
 
Mojo said:
A recent complaint against the BCA was rejected by the GCC on the grounds that the "GCC regulates individual chiropractors and we have no role in the regulation of chiropractic associations, clinics or companies. We cannot, therefore, investigate a complaint against the British Chiropractic Association."

See http://layscience.net/node/600

On the same basis, it could be argued that the GCC isn't bound by its own code.
Click to expand...
That is true - the CoP applies to registered chiropractors, not to any organisation, whether the GCC, the BCA or otherwise. (See also my blog post on this.)

However, the GCC have left themselves in the unbelievable position where, if chiros, who must statutorily be registered with the GCC and abide by their CoP, made the claims the GCC have made in their PIL, they would be breaking the very CoP supposedly enforced by the GCC! What an unbelievable situation! You couldn't make it up.

It could even be seen as the GCC encouraging its members to break their own CoP. (This is similar to the BCA publishing claims, that, if made by their members, would result in them breaking the GCC'c statutory CoP.)

The CoP is very clear: chiros can only make claims that are in line with the guidance issued by the Advertising Standards Authority (see my many blog posts on this!).

Their CoP does not say 'chiros must only make claims backed up by any old evidence, including anecdotes': it clearly states exactly what standards they are to be held to. I have no idea why they decided to word the CoP that way, but I and others are now ensuring they are held to account for not adhering to that. This is a job that I and others should not have had to do because there is a statutory regulator that should be, well, regulating. No doubt they will try to argue that they work on a 'complaints basis' (ie only responding if and when they receive a complaint) and that it's not their job to go around checking up on chiros. However, I think that's something that will be argued out in the future (even though there are obvious rebuttals).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom