British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Trinoc]

"It cannot be right for acupuncturists to validate acupuncture courses, herbalists to validate herbalism courses, homeopaths to validate homeopathy courses and so on. By that logic, we could have a degree in any moronic idea so long as there is a National Morons Association to validate it."

Ummm ... but ... who validates conventional medicine courses ... ?

[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.

[Jack of Kent]

The BCA do not appear to have yet filed a Reply at the High Court, which they should have done so by now: see http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/...cas-reply.html

As I set out on my Blog (and apologies for replication), this is odd. There are some possible explanations:

1. the BCA have not done a Reply, but this would mean they have (in effect) accepted the Defence as it stands;

2. the BCA have served the Reply on Singh, but not filed it at court, but this would mean their lawyers are perhaps incompetent;

3. the BCA are seeking to keep the Reply as some sort of closed document, but this would mean that they are embarrassed at what their Reply says; or

4. either I or the High Court have made a mistake (never to be ruled out).

I wonder which one it is?

[Jack of Kent]

(With an apology for again copying over from my Blog.)

The motive of the BCA in bringing a libel case has never been clear.

One would think that the appropriate response to Simon Singh's charge that there was not a jot of evidence that Chiropractic did not assist with six children's ailments would be to, er, show the evidence.

Bizarrely, the BCA instead issued libel proceedings before the High Court.

Why did they do this?

Some evidence on this point has been posted on the agreeable and useful Sacral Musings forum. The poster understands:

"My contacts at the BCA are determined to take this case forward on the principle that writing letters to the newspapers and journalists protesting that they are misrepresenting chirorpractic has not changed anything."

So there you have it.

One type of intervention is clearly not working, so a more drastic intervention is made, with no rational connection to the desired outcome, at great expense, and with the potential effect of actually damaging those whom the BCA exist to serve.

An interesting insight into the BCA and their attitude to an evidence-based approach.

[Blue Wode]

Good to see the Face Book group and its links to the latest news/comments on the case continuing to grow:
http://en-gb.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634&ref=mf

[Jack of Kent]

Indeed! Nearly 300 people joined within 24 hours of this wonderful plug from Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy, just before Christmas: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...kery-on-trial/

BTW, I now understand that this trial will be WITHOUT a jury (just like the Irving trial). It will be a High Court judge sitting alone, assessing the expert and other evidence.

The trial is likely to be before the summer.

[ianj5150]

Hello Jack of Kent,
Please excuse my ignorance but chiropractioners are doctors ???
Is the term doctor as in medical or like vicers, priests, math teachers and rock stars.



Lost Thought

My understanding is that in law, anyone can style themselves 'doctor'. But to be brutally honest, medical practitioners are not technically 'doctors'. The title was specifically intended only for holders of PhDs. Ironically, many people that I know who are PhDs don't use the title.

As for chiropractors, there are two main variants: McTimoney and ACA (American Chiropractic Association). McTimoney chiropractors style themselves 'doctor', ACAs do not. As for the value or otherwise of the treatment, I can only speak from experience: I have on two occasions been physically carried into my McTimoney practitioner, and walked out under my own steam. I'm sure that there is a lot of bull in chiropractic, but there is some very effective treatment as well.

[bruce]

My understanding is that in law, anyone can style themselves 'doctor'. But to be brutally honest, medical practitioners are not technically 'doctors'. The title was specifically intended only for holders of PhDs. Ironically, many people that I know who are PhDs don't use the title.

As for chiropractors, there are two main variants: McTimoney and ACA (American Chiropractic Association). McTimoney chiropractors style themselves 'doctor', ACAs do not. As for the value or otherwise of the treatment, I can only speak from experience: I have on two occasions been physically carried into my McTimoney practitioner, and walked out under my own steam. I'm sure that there is a lot of bull in chiropractic, but there is some very effective treatment as well.

Perhaps being treated by someone medically qualified, would have prevented the re-occurrence of the injury?

Because of an accident during my misspent youth :D, I have a slightly shorter left femur, which has led to a weakness at C4/C5, and a damaged sciatic nerve.
If I have any problems, I see a physiotherapist who has a speciality in sports injuries.

[Dubious Dick]

While not as serious as a short femur a la Bruce, I have also been to a few sports injury specialist physios and they were excellent at diagnosis and remedial work prescription.

The best was a lass called Sue , known as bend 'em and mend 'em, due to her participation in extreme sports. She was also gorgeous.

In fact, now I come to think of it, perhaps there was a large degree of placebo effect in being manipulated by a sexy woman? Anyone got any refs to how effective treatment is based on physical attraction of the practitioner?

If I was not so damn honest I should have claimed the probs were not cleared up so damn quickly!!

[ianj5150]

Perhaps being treated by someone medically qualified, would have prevented the re-occurrence of the injury?

Because of an accident during my misspent youth :D, I have a slightly shorter left femur, which has led to a weakness at C4/C5, and a damaged sciatic nerve.
If I have any problems, I see a physiotherapist who has a speciality in sports injuries.

I smashed up lumbar 4 about 14 years ago and as a result it's rather misshapen and sits at an angle. About seven years ago it decided to move out of place and as I lay on the floor incapacitated, a member of my team made an appointment for me at this chap's practice. I didn't hold out much hope because when the same thing had happened it the past I'd had literally months of physio with practically no effect. This time, three half-hour sessions over the space of a week and I was done. Some months later a friend of mind found herself practically crippled my sciatica - I took her along and the story was the same.

The cause of my second visit was not a re-occurance, but a fall that I had in London that left me with a vertebrae allignment that resembled a car accident. The X-ray that he took showed that L4 was showing signs of breaking up, so he told me to take calcium supplements, which I have done ever since. I've now been without back problems for over three years, which is the longest trouble-free period since I had the original accident.

Now, don't get me wrong here, I am not advocating alternative medicine in the sense that it is commonly understood. I myself used to work for the Medical Research Council and you would be hard-pressed to find a more vocal advocate of scientific medicine than me. There is little doubt that chiropractic can have a fair amount of bull clinging to it, but I think that principally depends upon the individual practitioner. In my experience there certainly seems to be some worthwhile therapy at the core of chiropractic which is at least worthy of open-minded examination.

[dizzyblonde]

My understanding is that in law, anyone can style themselves 'doctor'. But to be brutally honest, medical practitioners are not technically 'doctors'. The title was specifically intended only for holders of PhDs. Ironically, many people that I know who are PhDs don't use the title.

As for chiropractors, there are two main variants: McTimoney and ACA (American Chiropractic Association). McTimoney chiropractors style themselves 'doctor', ACAs do not. As for the value or otherwise of the treatment, I can only speak from experience: I have on two occasions been physically carried into my McTimoney practitioner, and walked out under my own steam. I'm sure that there is a lot of bull in chiropractic, but there is some very effective treatment as well.

Here in the UK, we do not have the American Chiropractic Association, but the British, Scottish, United and McTimoney Chiropractic Associations. Some chiropractors in all these associations do use the title Dr of Chiropractic, others do not. Some have phds, others do not.

[ianj5150]

Here in the UK, we do not have the American Chiropractic Association, but the British, Scottish, United and McTimoney Chiropractic Associations. Some chiropractors in all these associations do use the title Dr of Chiropractic, others do not. Some have phds, others do not.

Thank you, I stand corrected. As it happens, I got it the wrong way around anyway. McTimoneys do not generally style themselves as Dr, ACAs and others often do. I'm sure that some chiropractors are PhD holders, but that must be a tiny minority, surely?

[Blue Wode]

I myself used to work for the Medical Research Council and you would be hard-pressed to find a more vocal advocate of scientific medicine than me. There is little doubt that chiropractic can have a fair amount of bull clinging to it, but I think that principally depends upon the individual practitioner.

UK chiropractors are required by law to provide care that is factual and verifiable and evidence-based, so it is inexcusable that a large number of them still cling to chiropractic’s pseudoscientific subluxation-based nonsense.

As for the Medical Research Council, didn’t it conduct the chiro-friendly Meade studies in the 1990s and the BEAM trial in 2004? You can find the studies critiqued here:
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=26449&postcount=203

And it’s worth adding the following to the critiques of the Meade study:

People familiar with clinical tests of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for back pain were puzzled by the outcome of the British study by Meade, et al, (Brit Med J, 300:1431-37, 1990) which found chiropractic care to be more effective in the long term than hospital management (for chronic back pain sufferers only). Studies designed to test SMT against other modalities have consistently found that although SMT may produce more rapid relief there are no differences over the long term (for a review see Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, 179:62-70, 1983). The Meade study did not test SMT against other modalities but merely compared hospital with chiropractic care in which a flock of modalities were employed. It did not even equalize the number of treatment sessions nor length of time under care. The most likely answer to this anomalous finding lies in patient satisfaction.

More…
http://www.ncahf.net/nl/1991/1-2.html

[Blue Wode]

Here in the UK, we do not have the American Chiropractic Association, but the British, Scottish, United and McTimoney Chiropractic Associations. Some chiropractors in all these associations do use the title Dr of Chiropractic, others do not. Some have phds, others do not.

Whether a UK chiropractor is a plain DC, or a DC/PhD, his or her ‘doctor’ title could still easily dupe patients into thinking that they are being treated by a medical doctor.

It’s worth noting that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently upheld a complaint about a UK chiropractic clinic regarding truthfulness. It concluded that because the chiropractic doctors who worked in the clinic did not hold general medical qualifications, the use of the word 'Dr' could mislead. It also considered that the suggested claim 'Doctors of Chiropractic', for use in future ads, did not go far enough to remove the implication that the practitioners held general medical qualifications as well as chiropractic qualifications.
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44999.htm

So even a chiropractor with a PhD could still, in the eyes of the ASA, mislead the public.

[Blue Wode]

Via Simon Singh’s newsletter No.30 (not yet online) http://www.simonsingh.net/Newsletter.html

Chiropractic libel case – quick update

The trial date is still uncertain, but it will probably be in the early summer of 2009. I can, however, confirm that the trial will not involve a jury, because of its complicated nature, and instead the final decision will be made by the judge. The best place for news on the case is the Facebook group, which monitors various blogs and articles, and which now has almost 2,000 supporters:

For Simon Singh and Free Speech - Against the BCA Libel Claim
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634