British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

I hate to ask simple minded questions (I don't, actually, I just say that I do - it's a fundamental technique in Management Consultancy, and has led to a plethora of brown coloured underwear) but why is chiropractic being described as a "profession". As far as I can see, along with CAM in general it should be described as a delusion.
 
Fabulous news.

However well this process goes, Simon is likely to be out of pocket by about £20,000. This – and two years of lost earnings, which he can never recover, is the price he has paid for writing an article criticising the BCA for making claims the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled can no longer be made.
Click to expand...

Well let's hope he turns it to profit by writing a really great book about his collision with the BCA, the British legal system, and the nature of 'truth' - I'd buy it! Needs a good working title though... "Quacks on the rack?". Hmm. "The land where logos was bogus"? How about "Big Bang: what happens if you turn your back on the chiropractors".
 
Congrats Simon! Now take 'em for every pence you can get on the countersuit.
 
One of the problems seems to me to have been that the BCA were amongst other things claiming that Simon Singh was accusing them of knowing that the claims they were making were false, and that Eady, in his ruling, agreed with this interpretation. In other words, they Simon accused them of deliberately lying about the effectiveness of the procedures they were using.

As far as I can see, the BCA believed (and probably still believes) that what they were promoting was “effective treatment” for the conditions which they mentioned. Like believers in astrology, numerology and innumerable other woo-woos, nothing will shake their belief. For those who haven’t read it, I recommend Ben Goldacre's book “Bad Science” and his blog with the same title. In those he examines just why people believe in the bizarre.

Remember Hanlon’s razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
 
dahduh said:
Fabulous news.



Well let's hope he turns it to profit by writing a really great book about his collision with the BCA, the British legal system, and the nature of 'truth' - I'd buy it! Needs a good working title though... "Quacks on the rack?". Hmm. "The land where logos was bogus"? How about "Big Bang: what happens if you turn your back on the chiropractors".
Click to expand...


Yes, is there any way this could get a silver lining? Once whatever can be recovered from the BCA has been settled, will there be any way his supporters can do something?

Simon - and Simon's wife - have fought for us all. Apart from making sure to buy everything he's ever written, how can we repay them?

During these two years they have faced losing their house, probably seen less of each other than they'd like and now they have just had a baby - despite this mrs Singh has not demanded that he settle so they can be left in peace. I think an extra huzzah is in order for her as well. A two year nightmare like this demands a very good partner.
 
I understand Simon Singh's family has independent means, quite apart from his income from writing. So I don't imagine it was ever quite as dire as that. However, I'm sure he's immensely releived that it's all over.

Rolfe.
 
In their press statement, the BCA states: (about the ruling of the Court of Appeal) "While it still considers that the article was defamatory of the BCA, the decision provides Dr Singh with a defence such that the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side."
Is it really true that the ruling considers that the article was defamatory? I thought the ruling did not address this question at all?
 
steenkh said:
In their press statement, the BCA states: (about the ruling of the Court of Appeal) "While it still considers that the article was defamatory of the BCA, the decision provides Dr Singh with a defence such that the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side."
Is it really true that the ruling considers that the article was defamatory? I thought the ruling did not address this question at all?
Click to expand...

I think it's a poorly written statement, and the first 'it' is meant to refer to the BCA.

ETA: I could be wrong, in which case the BCA statement is wronger. :)
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
In their press statement, the BCA states: (about the ruling of the Court of Appeal) "While it still considers that the article was defamatory of the BCA, the decision provides Dr Singh with a defence such that the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side."
Is it really true that the ruling considers that the article was defamatory? I thought the ruling did not address this question at all?
Click to expand...

Oh yes there is no doubt that the BCA have been defamed. It's just that as it stands Simon would have been in an excelent position to justify this defamation.

You see according to Jack of Kent all defamation means is that the publication of the passage complained of, has lowered the reputation of the BCA. The Court of Appeal couldn't very well say that the article's publication has had no negative effect on the reputation of the BCA, that would be absurd.

Thanks partly to the words Simon wrote and even more to the BCA's efforts in bringing them to the widest possible readership their reputation is now hugely damaged. Everyone who is anyone knows that they've been happily promoting bogus treatments for which there's not a jot of evidence.

The courts haven't denied that this is bad news for the BCA, they've just opened a big wide door marked "Just as it should be" and invited Simon to step through it.
 
Last edited:
Ocelot said:
Oh yes there is no doubt that the BCA have been defamed. It's just that as it stands Simon would have been in an excelent position to justify this defamation.

You see according to Jack of Kent all defamation means is that the publication of the passage complained of, has lowered the reputation of the BCA. The Court of Appeal couldn't very well say that the article's publication has had no negative effect on the reputation of the BCA, that would be absurd.

Thanks partly to the words Simon wrote and even more to the BCA's efforts in bringing them to the widest possible readership their reputation is now hugely damaged. Everyone who is anyone knows that they've been happily promoting bogus treatments for which there's not a jot of evidence.

The courts haven't denied that this is bad news for the BCA, they've just opened a big wide door marked "Just as it should be" and invited Simon to step through it.
Click to expand...


Ah, thanks, that also makes sense. I forgot that the reputation of the BCA might have been artificially high to start with; if defamation simply means lowering the reputation, even if that is to a more realistic level, then the statement makes sense (though the layman (Hi!) clearly can take a different meaning from it).
 
zooterkin said:
though the layman (Hi!) clearly can take a different meaning from it.
Click to expand...

That may well be their intent. Though I for on haven't got anywhere near deep enough pockets to suggest any form of bogosity.

Their reputation may have been damaged by this but lets not think that it's low enough to make the libel-proof.
 
Paul W said:
I hate to ask simple minded questions ... but why is chiropractic being described as a "profession". As far as I can see, along with CAM in general it should be described as a delusion.
Click to expand...
Chiropractic is properly a cult. However, the definition of "professional" has changed markedly in recent decades. Originally, we had merchants (who bought and sold), tradesmen (who made money by labor), professionals (who sold their learned opinions), etc. Today, everyone likes to be known as a professional, just like Norton (in the old TV series, The Honeymooners) termed himself as an "engineer in subterranean sanitation" (a sewer worker). So, in the same sense that we have "professional" garbage collectors (sanitation workers) we have "professional" chiropractors.

I refer to chiros as trade workers, and their customers as, well, "customers" rather than "patients" (doctors have "patients", sanitation workers have "customers").

Hot Dang for Simon Singh!!!
 
He doesn't have to. Civil proceeding rules in the UK make a claimant who discontinues liable for the defendant's costs unless the court orders otherwise.

What the BCA can do is:
1. Make a fuss about the accounting, so that Simon has to spend time justifying every penny. This is likely, and any legal wranglings from this point on will come out of his own pocket. Someone's estimated about £20,000 of unavoidable expenses, but I have no idea what they consist of.
2. Try to drag their feet or just nitpick until he gives up. In that case, I think they would quickly end up in a world of trouble - IANAL, but I think they'd fall afoul of criminal law for failing in their liabilities.
 
dahduh said:
Fabulous news.



Well let's hope he turns it to profit by writing a really great book about his collision with the BCA, the British legal system, and the nature of 'truth' - I'd buy it! Needs a good working title though... "Quacks on the rack?". Hmm. "The land where logos was bogus"? How about "Big Bang: what happens if you turn your back on the chiropractors".
Click to expand...

How about
ChiroQuackers
ChiroQuactic
Quacks on your back
 
Rolfe said:
Part of me wishes this had gone all the way, and the "plethora" tested in court. But it would have been much too rough on Simon.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

This.

I'm happy for SS of course, but I was really looking forward to see the BCA in court. Especially with the evidence that they chose to provide.

I suspect that Simon could have handled it too...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom