British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Jack of Kent]

I hope, though, that we will be just as zealous if anyone tries this sort of trick from the orthodox side of science. It's all too easy to get carried away about injustice when it is "one of us" being threatened, but will we be consistent when the shoe is on the other foot?

I agree entirely.

[Blue Wode]

Thanks to a member of ASKE, the full text of the science and libel articles in the latest issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) which addressed the BCA/Singh affair can now be found online here:
http://musicweaver.users.btopenworld...e-articles.htm

They include the pieces by Fiona Godlee (BMJ Editor), Richard Brown (Vice-President of the BCA), and Professor Edzard Ernst.

[Blue Wode]

Via Dr*T at Thinking Is Dangerous blogspot this morning:

Monday, July 13, 2009
General Chiropractic Council unable to cope with complaints


According to a letter shown to this blog, the General Chiropractic Council has written to complainants and chiropractors saying that it can not cope with the number of complaints it has received (590 last month compared with 40 per year).

The GCC have stated that

it will be necessary to increase our regulatory staff capacity before we issue formal notification of any complaints relating to chiropractic websites.

The lack of staff will delay the commencement of the formal process until September 2009. The increase in complaints was due to the British Chiropractic Association's attempt to silence criticism about claims for chiropractic being an evidence-free zone.

If the BCA had been a bit less foolish, it could have avoided this whole debacle, but it appears that it was spoiling for a fight, and is looking pretty groggy.

http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspo...unable-to.html

[Trinoc]

Thanks to Dr*T for the link to this page ...

http://www.glasgowchiropractic.com/p...lder-pain.html

Chiropractic has never cured anyone of anything.

[lost thought]

Thanks to Dr*T for the link to this page ...

http://www.glasgowchiropractic.com/p...lder-pain.html

I tried to find this Conservative Chiropractic Care of Frozen Shoulder Syndrome: A Case Study. Chiropractic Res J, 1992; 2(2):31-37,
And found these links….Both are in PDF format the second link is 152 pages and you may find interesting.


http://www.roedigerchiropractic.com/PDF/Feb2008Newsletter.pdf

http://www.ccgpp.org/upperextremity.pdf

[Blue Wode]

BCA Vice-President, Richard Brown, responds to Edzard Ernst in the BMJ today:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/...4/b2766#217334

[Croydon Bob]

BCA Vice-President, Richard Brown, responds to Edzard Ernst in the BMJ today:

The desperate bleating of a dead-man-walking?

[Blue Wode]

Edzard Ernst responds to BCA's Richard Brown in today's BMJ:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/...4/b2766#217424

ETA:
For anyone experiencing difficulties in accessing Ernst's response to Brown in the BMJ, try this link:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul08_4/b2766

[Trinoc]

Interesting article by Jack of Kent on another libel case ...

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/...d-v-bower.html

The main point is that the practice of claimants getting the court to accept an exaggerated meaning of the alleged libel text (with the help of our friend, Justice Eady) can backfire badly if they lose, since it is now on record that the exaggerated claim is justified, even if it is not what the defendant intended to say.

Though Jack cautiously does not draw a parallel, it seems to me that if the BCA should lose their case against Simon Singh then it would similarly be on the record that a claim that they promoted bogus treatment with deliberate dishonesty would be justified, even though Singh did not actually intend to say that.

[Croydon Bob]

Interesting article by Jack of Kent on another libel case ...

An article on the same case highlighting Justice Eady's "plainly wrong" decision to disallow the crucial evidence in the case, fortunately overturned by appeal Judges:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009...ess-newspapers

How come I never see anything positive about this man?

[Jack of Kent]

An article on the same case highlighting Justice Eady's "plainly wrong" decision to disallow the crucial evidence in the case, fortunately overturned by appeal Judges:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009...ess-newspapers

How come I never see anything positive about this man?

I actualy am on Eady's side on his developments of privacy law.

[Blue Wode]

http://scepticsbook.com/2009/07/29/the-simon-singh-article-that-caused-all-the-fuss-reproduced-here/

In a worldwide campaign released today, 29th July 2009, the Guardian article originally posted by Simon Singh back in April 2008, is being republished across the world.

The edited version has the libelous sentence removed, but is reproduced to allow the public at large to understand the intentions of Simon’s original post. Given the current legal action currently in progress by the British Chiropractic Association against Simon, this provides insight into the claims for all to see.

Spearheaded by Sense about Science, the intention of campaign is to alert the public to the potential implications of libel or defamation as it pertains to free speech and journalism, not only in the UK but also across the globe.

Below is the article produced in full, as approved by Simon and Sense about Science.

Beware the spinal trap

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.
You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with 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.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in the Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

Official link on this latest development:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/...te/project/380

More:
http://www.layscience.net/node/621
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/07/wha...all-about.html

[Jack of Kent]

I have published the two allegedly defamatory sentences at http://bit.ly/xvb4y

[zeno]

Brilliant! Which part/paragraph of Schedule 1 covers it, Jack?

[Trinoc]

The BCA themselves published the defamatory sentences here!