British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

I do wonder- If a judge is driving on ice and goes into a skid, does he turn into the skid, or adjourn for a month to consider meteorological reports ?
What in hell can they think of by Easter that they didn't think of yesterday?
To be fair to their lordships, and I am no great friend of lawyers, Jack's blog explains how finely balanced the decision is. They will have to pore over case law to defend a decision which a lot of people will criticise, whichever way it goes.

But I did enjoy your analogy!:D
 
You mean like this one, posted by "Anonymous" (who incidentally seems to share many of your concerns) on 10 July, 2009 at 20:12?
That was an astonishingly ill-informed post. Harms can't be analysed in the same way as benefits, because clinical trials are too small to detect the less common side effects. The data on harms from chiro are very incomplete because of under-reporting, so one just has to address what there is. The data on benefits from chiro have been subjected to rigorous RCTs, so the picture is very clear. Yes, physios perform manipulation, it's about as effective as chiropractic manipulation for back pain only, and yes there is a lot of physio that is not evidence based. I am not however impressed by the tu quoque argument.

Presumably `Anonymous' was embarrassed to identify him/herself, if this was the extent of their knowledge.
 
Last edited:
The GCC now has a page up on its website about the report:
Chiropractors are required to practise evidence based care, which is defined as the integration of best research, clinical expertise and patient values.

When they advertise their services, however, any claims chiropractors make must be based on best research only. For the purposes of the Advertising Standards Authority, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and Trading Standards, best research means it should be of the highest standard. In most cases this will almost certainly mean randomised controlled trials.

The report of the review of the best research evidence for known claims made by chiropractors across a wide range of conditions was commissioned by the GCC. This provides a source of guidance for chiropractors who advertise. For ease of reference, the evidence summary tables can be accessed directly. Professor Scott Haldeman and Professor Martin Underwood have provided commentaries on the report.

The report includes reference to relevant European Guidelines and publications by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

The report has been brought to the attention of the CAP Copy Advice Team. Their initial view, subject to detailed consideration of the report, is that potentially it could be helpful in reviewing their Health and Beauty Products Advice Note and support consistency in advice provided by their free service.

A copy of the report will be sent direct to all GCC registrants in the next week or so.

http://www.gcc-uk.org/page.cfm?page_id=1396
 
The English libel laws are definitely not perfect, Monkey, but the issue is that cynical people want to be able to call some innocent guy a fraudulent lying scumbag and get away with it.
This is wrong. To quote libelreform.org
We believe that the law needs to facilitate the free exchange of ideas and information, whilst offering redress to anyone whose reputation is falsely or unfairly damaged.
You'll find in plenty of other places that people don't wish to stop someone being able to sue for libel, but rather to rationalise the laws into a state more akin to those of other countries, where costs are lower and public interest is protected and where libel tourism is not so easy for complainants.
 
You keep claiming this, but I still can't see where this has actually happened. You quoted "you're bogus, a fraud, a liar, and I can say all this because it's merely comment" earlier, and when asked for a source provided a link to a thesaurus for "bogus", and a dead link. Was the attribution in the dead link you provided?
...and how is this relevant to the case in hand, which does not concern an innocent guy but a trade body happily promoting bogus treatments. I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have read a book about alternative medicine co-authored by the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

What is more the ASA have ruled there is no evidence to support the treatments the BCA have claimed their members can help and more importantly the same treatments which the General Chiropractic Council have said are not effective.

If there is an innocent guy here it is not the BCA.
 
Last edited:
Simon Singh's article did no damage at all to the BCA - until they decided to bring derision on themselves by suing him (rather than rebut his comments) and then producing their 'plethora' of evidence, which turned out to be about as useful as a chocolate teapot in terms of providing evidence of effective treatment.

Interesting that the recent evidence produced by the GCC is far from supportive of the BCA's position.
 
Interesting that the recent evidence produced by the GCC is far from supportive of the BCA's position.
As I understand it there is no new evidence from the GCC. Rather they have only just got round to looking at the available evidence, evidence which Professor Ernst looked at some time ago when writing his book with Simon Singh.
 
Last edited:
cynical people want to be able to call some innocent guy a fraudulent lying scumbag and get away with it.

You're certainly not an innocent guy, you're a fraudulent lying scumbag cynically proclaiming that libel law reform will allow an innocent guy to be called a fraudulent lying scumbag.
 
As I understand it there is no new evidence from the GCC. Rather they have only just got round to looking at the available evidence, evidence which Professor Ernst looked at some time ago when writing his book with Simon Singh.

Err.yeah..good point. I should have said 'analysis of the evidence' or something. Just read it like that and it all makes sense. Tum tee tum.:blush:
 
Several off-topic posts have been removed. Please bear in mind that this thread is to discuss the BCA vs. Simon Singh case, not to talk about blogs related to it or to make personal attacks on those who run them.

Also, if you want to discuss things like peer review and the Taliban, please do so in a more appropriate thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
Article: [Furious backlash from Simon Singh libel case puts chiropractors on ropes]

Subtitle: One in four chiropractors in Britain are under investigation as a result of campaign by Singh supporters, reveals Martin Robbins

Excerpt:
As the British Chiropractic Association's battle with Simon Singh continues to work its way through the legal system, chiropractors are counting the financial costs of a major backlash resulting from a libel action that has left the Lord Chief Justice "baffled". What was originally a dispute between the BCA and one science writer over free speech has become a brutally effective campaign to reform an entire industry.

blutoskitorial: is this new, or is this reporter describing something that's been happening for quite some time and reported previously?
 
Last edited:
Article: [Furious backlash from Simon Singh libel case puts chiropractors on ropes]

Subtitle: One in four chiropractors in Britain are under investigation as a result of campaign by Singh supporters, reveals Martin Robbins

Excerpt:

blutoskitorial: is this new, or is this reporter describing something that's been happening for quite some time and reported previously?
There's nothing I didn't know about, but it's important that it has appeared in the Grauniad as well numerous blogs. The story needs to get out to the general public as well as us sceptics.
 
Of course we hope that the meaning of "bogus" insisted on by Lord Justice Eady doesn't stand. Because that's not what Simon meant. However, if that ruling did go the wrong way, is it possible he could win on that meaning? The BCA seem to have dug themselves one hell of a hole as far as demonstrating knowing taradiddles goes.

Rolfe.
 
Of course we hope that the meaning of "bogus" insisted on by Lord Justice Eady doesn't stand. Because that's not what Simon meant. However, if that ruling did go the wrong way, is it possible he could win on that meaning? The BCA seem to have dug themselves one hell of a hole as far as demonstrating knowing taradiddles goes.

Rolfe.

Well, I think that showing their ignorance is not enough. Showing that they KNEW that they did not know is what he would have to demonstrate.

Possible, especially if he can find some prior admission on their part, but difficult.
 

Back
Top Bottom